Matt Walsh’s What Is a Woman? documentary, sparked by Caitlin Jenner’s 2015 transition and Twitter’s incoherent gender debates, exposes flaws in progressive ideology—like New Jersey’s "gender self-ID" policy enabling irreversible procedures on minors, including puberty blockers and double mastectomies. He argues gender theory mirrors cult-like religion, with fabricated historical claims (e.g., "Two Spirit") and profit-driven medical practices lacking long-term data, while 300,000 Daily Wire subscribers joined post-release. Rogan and Walsh debate marriage’s purpose, with Walsh insisting it’s tied to procreation between a man and woman, but Rogan counters that societal acceptance of gay unions is about preventing discrimination. Ultimately, the episode underscores how ideological enforcement—from schools to social media—silences dissent, reshapes institutions, and risks harming children under untested, rapidly evolving norms. [Automatically generated summary]
Your documentary is, it's, I can't tell you how many people have asked me if I've seen it.
I think it's one of the most eye-opening things that's ever been done on this whole gender confusion thing that we're going through right now in our culture.
And it was just like one of those things where I had to watch.
Like so many people were like, you have to see this.
You have to see this.
And I expected it to be like, I mean, I thought it would be like arguments with people or it would be very, you know, very confrontational.
But instead, I think you did it masterfully.
What you did is you just let these people explain themselves the way they would talk if you weren't there, the way they would talk to people who agree with what they're saying.
And by not pushing back, I think you allowed them to let all the crazy out.
And it's like it's hard to describe to people that aren't aware of what's going on, of how wild this stuff has gotten.
But first of all, tell me, what was the process of making this?
Yeah, thanks for talking about it so much on your podcast, by the way.
It's been a huge boost for us.
And we, you know, I had this idea, you'd really have to go back several years because it occurred to me maybe back in, I don't know, 2017, that when this transgender stuff was starting to really gain mainstream traction, which I think happened really, that was like maybe when Bruce Jenner became Caitlin Jenner.
That was the moment that I think it exploded onto the mainstream.
Not when it began, but it exploded onto the mainstream.
Right around that time, it sort of occurred to me that the people promoting this stuff have a problem, which is that we're supposed to accept someone like Bruce as a woman, but then what exactly does that mean?
What are we accepting him as?
He says, I identify as a woman.
Well, what are you identifying as?
What are we, if you're a woman, I know what a woman was before, but if now we're including a guy like Bruce, then what is a woman now?
And so I started asking this question.
It was really basic, just like, what is a woman?
What are you trying to say about womanhood now?
And couldn't get anyone to answer it.
I mean, and mostly it's just on Twitter, you know, and challenging someone on the left, just give me a definition.
What's your definition of the word?
And none of them would do it.
So at a certain point, I thought, well, we have to find a way to go out and put this question in front of them.
And that's sort of where the idea for the documentary came from.
And we knew going in that we wanted two things.
Well, three things.
One is we have the mission behind it, the message that we want to get across.
But we also want it to be a piece of entertainment, you know, because a lot of conservative documentaries, not all of them, but many of them are just, you feel like you're watching an extended version of a podcast or something.
It's not a piece of entertainment.
So we wanted it to be that.
And then we also knew that the way this is going to work, if it works at all, is if I'm just asking questions.
Because if it's me going on a tour around the country yelling at people, it would be satisfying for me emotionally, but it just wouldn't prove anything other than what people already know, which is that two sides yell at each other.
So we wanted to give sort of gender ideology a chance to hang itself by its own incoherences, which I think is what happened.
Yeah, we had a couple that stormed out, but only one made it on camera.
And that was Mark Takano, a congressman in California.
And he's one of the advocates.
There's a reason why.
There's a reason we chose all these people.
It wasn't just random.
He's an advocate.
He's not just a Democrat politician.
He's an advocate for the Equality Act, which is this push by Democrats to kind of federalize all this stuff on a national level so that all across the country, for example, men have the right to use a women's restroom and opens up all the sports teams and all that just settles it, takes it away from the states.
So he's an advocate of that.
He's a good guy to talk to.
And he sat there for about 30 minutes, especially when I'm asking him the easy questions.
And he would give his filibustering answer.
But then once I started asking real questions, that's when he got really uncomfortable.
You could even see in the film, he keeps looking over my shoulder, and that's because his aide is standing right behind my back the entire time.
But she never, I kept expecting her to cut it off and shut it down, but she never did.
And eventually he just had enough of it, and he got up and left.
But the thing that made him leave was I didn't even get to ask him the what is a woman question.
I asked him, I asked him, you know, there are males who want to use the women's restroom or the women's locker room, but then there are females who don't want to see an individual with a penis in the locker room.
So you've got two competing claims here: two people who have feelings, the women who feel like they don't want to see this, it makes them feel bad to see it.
And then the men who it makes them feel bad if they can't use the restroom.
Well, in those scenarios, this is where women, particularly feminists who have always been like hardcore lefties, they're finding themselves in this ideological quagmire.
They're like, they're feminists.
They're pro-women's rights.
They're on the left.
And they're not anti-trans, but then all of a sudden this is getting imposed into their world and they're told they have to accept it or they're transphobic, regardless of this person's sexual history.
Like if this person is a sexual abuser, if this person is like literally a registered sex offender, they can go into certain places, dress like a woman, and use women's spaces.
And you know, the other thing to keep in mind, too, is that, yeah, there are men who are just gaming the system, as you point out.
I think in prison that happens a lot because they'd rather be in a women's prison than a men's prison.
But also in general, like there are different categories of people who transition, and we kind of talk about them like they're all the same, but they're not.
And you can kind of break it down by age.
Like there's the very young children, a five-year-old, and we hear that, oh, my five-year-old is trans.
That's 1,000% the parent just deciding they're going to do that to the child because no child is going to make it, no child even knows what that is.
So you have to suggest that to them.
Then you have the adolescent girls, and Abigail Schreier has written about this in her great book.
And that's the social contagion.
They pick it up from society.
But then there's the older men who are adults and decide one day that they're women.
And for so many of them, this is a fetish.
I mean, this is like the thing we're not allowed to say or acknowledge, but it's totally true.
That for most of these older men who decide that I'm a woman, it's a fetish.
It's auto gynephilia.
They're enchanted by the idea of themselves as women.
And so now we have to participate in your fetish.
Like you get off on the idea of being seen as a woman.
And I have to be a participant in that.
It's really degrading to all of us that we're all being forced into this.
It's always been known as being like a psychiatric condition.
Like it's a mental health issue.
Right.
And now it's being accepted as a gender identity issue, where it was always just like a weird kink that people had.
And now you're, again, regardless of whether or not this person's a sex offender, registered sex offender, repeated sex offender, you have to accept this.
Otherwise, you're a bigot.
It's just this rigid adherence to ideology is so cult-like.
It's so fucking hands-made tale.
It's so wild that people are just wholesale adopting this.
And this is not to deny that there's people that are trans.
I've met people that are trans.
It exists in nature.
I mean, you occasionally, guys will shoot a buck and they'll find out that it's actually a female with antlers.
Nature's weird, right?
I think nature does put people make humans for whatever reason that really feel like they should have been born a female or should have been born a male.
But that's not all of what's happening.
And in our desire to be compassionate and to have care for these people and to love these people and respect these people, we're opening the door to all this chaos.
And I think that's what you highlight so well in this film.
And it's just, it's so strange to me how so many people on the left, people that I, you know, before this, I generally respected their opinion, just buy into it wholesale and will spout out things as if they're facts about how much this helps people and keeps people from killing themselves and helps kids.
And the suicide stuff is so, it's just so sinister because this is the emotional blackmail that they tell parents that your daughter identifies as your son now.
And then the classic line, the now classic line is, would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?
Like you have to affirm this or your daughter's going to kill themselves.
And so many parents, especially, you know, you go back a couple of years when this conversation wasn't being had on a very visible level, they just, they don't know what to do.
They're panicked.
And they've just been told by a mental health provider who they trust that if they don't go along with their child's delusion, that their child's going to commit suicide.
So I can understand when you're told that, that you're going to kind of panic.
But it's just, it's not true.
The evidence, in fact, tells us the opposite, that suicidality, we cover this in the film.
Scott Nugent mentions it, that the only reliable long-term study we have on this shows that suicidality is the highest after, years after transition.
That's the highest point for suicidality among trans people.
But the other problem, too, is that there are a couple of maybe reliable long-term studies, but there aren't that many because we haven't done this to people on this scale ever before in human history.
So the current crop of especially trans, quote-unquote trans kids, they're the guinea pigs.
We're experimenting on them.
And they're making a lot of, the healthcare providers are making a lot of promises about how this is going to turn out when they can't possibly know this because we've never done it before.
Well, that's one of the more sinister aspects of it for me is the way they're encouraging hormone blockers and hormone transition for people that are going through puberty or haven't gone through puberty.
We don't have any long-term studies on this.
And now they're finding that these hormone blockers aren't innocuous and that they cause a lot of health problems.
And they're saying this now out in the open when people have been for years, the last few years, promoting this as if it's a pause button.
And it's just absurd because that's not how human biology works.
I think there's a lot of what they claim, it shouldn't, intuitively, it doesn't make any sense.
It defies common sense.
Even before you look at the data, and then you look at the data and you realize that, yeah, it doesn't make any sense.
But even before that, you can't, what's being claimed that you can kind of put a child in a state of suspended animation where they're kind of lingering on on pause.
That's not how the human body works.
What you can do is try to suppress the human body's normal natural functions.
But when you do that, it's a trade-off.
There are consequences.
There are always consequences.
That's how nature works.
And we also know that what are the drugs they use, like Lupron is a drug that uses a puberty blocker.
And it's just a fact that this drug, number one, to begin with, is a cancer drug, originally for older men who have prostate cancer.
And they've also used it to chemically castrate sex offenders.
I think in Georgia, they've used it for that purpose.
So it's an actual chemical castration drug used off label for 10-year-old or 11-year-old, 12-year-old kids.
And the other thing they do is they say that, well, we don't, as this conversation has grown about actual surgery for children, which is happening all across the country.
But what they always say is that, well, it's not, you know, that's not really what's happening, especially younger kids.
It's puberty blockers, not surgery.
And yeah, it might be true that they're not performing actual surgeries on 12-year-olds at this point.
At least that's not a common practice.
But what they don't tell you is that once you put the kid on this conveyor belt, they're going to probably stay on it all the way to the surgery.
You've put them in the system.
You've put them on, it is like a conveyor belt system, and they're most likely not going to jump off.
You start with the puberty blockers.
In almost every case, it's going to lead to hormone therapy.
And then in a great many cases, they go from there to surgery.
The other thing, too, is that as they're going along with these drugs, you are taking away, you're sterilizing them.
You're oftentimes permanently taking away their future fertility.
So you've taken away their capacity to, like a girl, you've made it so she'll never be able to have kids in the future.
You've already taken that from her.
She has given it up before she even could know what she's even given up.
And then for her, it's kind of a logical process.
Well, I've already given that up, so I might as well go get the double mastectomy and then all down the line.
And then there's the euphoria that comes with taking testosterone that happens to them.
Like almost immediately, they have a different feeling and they go, oh, this is how I should have been all along.
Now the medicine is helping me.
It's also, if someone identifies as male or identifies as female, and this is just how they feel they are, what's the logical argument for starting to give them hormones that are not natural in their system?
The only argument you ever hear from them, and I know because I've asked, is the emotional blackmail argument, that you just, you have to do it because if you don't, they're going to kill them.
But another point about the suicide thing I want to mention is that, you know, we know that trans identification has risen, and the youngest generation has risen like 20 or 30-fold, And what they tell us on the left is that, well, that's not social contagion.
This is just people now feel comfortable to live their truth.
So there's always been this many trans people.
It's just that in the past, they couldn't announce that to the world because it was an unaffirming society.
So they tell you, well, if that's true, and you had like millions of trans people in the past who are living in these unaffirming societies, and we're also told that if you don't affirm trans people, it leads to suicide, then shouldn't we see, if we look back through history, just this unbroken mass epidemic across the world of people killing themselves en masse because they're not being affirmed as trans?
That's not what we find.
Shouldn't we see like, you know, you should be able to go back to 1850 and find millions of kids killing themselves because it turns out they were trans and not being affirmed.
But child suicide almost like didn't exist up until very recently.
It was basically unheard of.
So it's just everything they say, when you apply a little bit of common sense, it all starts to break down.
When do you think this shit, do you think it's the Caitlin Jenner thing that shifted it?
Like, when did this become a big part of the cultural narrative?
Because I would have never imagined if you came up to me 20 years ago and said in 20 years from now, like gender identity will be one of the big points of contention in our culture among politics.
And it's clear in both of the, especially Kinsey, it's pretty clear that he had his sexual fetishes and fascinations, and he wanted to prove to himself that he's not weird because everyone's like this.
And so he goes out and he declares, I think he said that 10% of adult males are gay or something like that.
And then you find out that he's mostly surveying prisoners and sex offenders and people like that.
He's not going to just a normal intersection of Americans.
So you go back to those guys, but I think what's the moment when all this exploded into the mainstream?
It was seeded into our institutions.
And then there was a moment when it all became mainstream.
And I don't know if Bruce Jenner is the definite starting point, but I do think that that was a pivotal moment.
It was a pivotal moment, not just because now the media is celebrating this, but also because conservatives had an opportunity right then and there to take a stand against this, to recognize it for what it is, for the threat that it is, and to take a firm stand.
And I think so many conservatives didn't because they just imagine that this is, either they don't want to get in trouble, be called a transphobe, or they just thought it's sort of a sideshow.
And so they just, many conservatives basically ignored it.
I found out about the reaction that people have to this and how strongly they're committed to this when there was a transgender fighter that was hiding the fact, Fallon Fox, hiding the fact that they were biologically male and competed twice as a woman, beating the fuck out of these women.
And I was like, this is crazy.
And trying to say that it was just a medical procedure.
And when I, I thought, rightly got angry at it, I saw all these articles written, all these pieces about how transphobic my position was and what a horrible person I was.
Like, we're literally talking about someone not telling someone.
I said that, look, if you are a transgender athlete and you tell someone, hey, I was biologically male, but now I identify as a female, would you like to fight?
And that person still says yes, all in.
Go ahead, have fun.
Just like I think you should be able to ride bulls and go dirt biking and skydiving, do whatever wild, dangerous shit you want to do.
But to hide the fact that you're biologically male and you were a male for 30 plus years, that was madness to me.
But they had already drawn this line this in.
And I remember arguing with someone on Twitter about it when this woman said, she was always a woman.
I go, even when this person impregnated a woman and had a child with them, she's like, even then, like, even then, she stuck her penis in a woman, got her pregnant.
What they're really saying is that this person, they're talking about self-perception.
Like, this person perceived himself that way.
But self-perception is not always reality.
Of course, we all, in most other contexts, we recognize that a person can have a self-perception that just is not true.
It's just inaccurate.
I mean, you could walk down the street in any city and find drug-addled homeless people talking to themselves.
And if you were to ask them about themselves, you're going to find, they're going to say a lot of things that just don't line up with reality.
And in every other context, we're allowed to acknowledge that, even in medical contexts.
I mean, someone who has body dysmorphia in the form of anorexia, you know, a young woman goes to the doctor and she's 90 pounds and she says, I feel like I'm a 300-pound, you know, fat ass.
Like, why is gender this ideological battleground?
Like, how the fuck did that become this thing where it's encouraging like this cult-like mentality where you can, even though things are clearly odd, clearly don't make any sense.
They don't fit with logical reality.
You have to adhere to whatever this ideology is promoting.
I think it's, I mean, at a most basic level, I think that this is a, like I said, this is an attack on truth.
And this is, you know, if you want to, if your project is kind of, is relativism and you want to get rid of objective ideas of truth, what are you going to go after?
I mean, if you can go after someone's really fundamental understanding of themselves, it's not just that they're attacking reality.
It's like they're attacking the reality of the self.
And so they're depriving a person of the ability to understand their own themselves.
And once you do that, if you're successful on a societal level, then it's sort of like the sky's the limit.
So do you think this is like a conscious decision, or do you think this is just something that people have adopted because it seems to be the ideology du jour?
I mean, at an institutional level, I think a lot of it is conscious.
Some of the people that I talked to in the film, I think that they know that this doesn't make any sense and that it's wrong.
And I think because they have to know it.
You know, if you're a doctor, you do have a basic understanding of male and female.
You must.
You wouldn't have been able to get through medical school if you don't.
So I think that for them, it's intensely ideological.
It's also profit-driven.
They're made a lot of money off of this.
If a six-year-old boy says, I feel like I'm a girl, and the response to the boy is, no, you're a boy, and that's what you are, and that's okay.
And he'll get over it and he'll get over it because it's just a phase and he'll live a normal life and that's fine, but there's no money in that.
Whereas if you encourage the delusion, now that boy individually is worth millions of dollars down the line to therapists and doctors and endocrinologists and surgeons and everything.
So I think it's profit-driven.
And then there's also just a lot of actual confusion out there.
People don't really understand what's going on.
And then there's cowardice too.
People are just terrified.
I've certainly seen a lot of that.
People just are, they are scared shitless about being accused of bigotry, losing their social media platforms, losing their jobs, losing their friends.
I get this question all the time everywhere I go.
Well, how do I deal with this at my job?
Because if I reveal that I understand reality at my job, I'll lose my job or I'll lose my family.
And that's because they know that they can't, the people that are pushing this stuff know that they can't defend it.
They can't defend it intellectually.
They also feel like they shouldn't have to.
I think that they, some of the people we talked to, what is a woman, they were offended that we were even questioning them.
Because from their perspective, especially if you're a college professor or something, the relationship is supposed to be, I pontificate, and you just sit there slackjawed and nod your head and go along with it.
So they feel like they shouldn't have to defend it, but they also know that they can't.
And so what are you left with?
You're left with speech suppression, scaring people.
That's the only tool in your bag.
And it's been really effective, unfortunately, so far.
I guess I would say I was surprised by just how big the response was.
I knew we had something.
I knew we had something with the idea.
And then once we filmed all the footage, before we even put it together, I'm like, I know we have something explosive here, but you never know exactly how people will respond to something.
It's the first time I've been involved in a film myself.
So I was expecting a big reaction, but not quite to the extent that we got.
And across the spectrum, too, because I knew that our audience of the Daily Wire would love the film and appreciate it.
But it's gone way beyond that.
I mean, I hear from people who tell me that they identify as liberal or they're independent, they're not ideological.
And the other thing that I hear from people about the movie, probably the number one piece of feedback I get is that they just didn't realize it was this, they didn't realize how bad it was or how pervasive it was.
Even people that I thought were sort of politically engaged on the right, I hear the same things.
Well, when Jordan Peterson first started talking about compelled speech and compelled use of pronouns, I remember people thinking like, why do you care about this?
This is like such a small issue with a marginalized group of people.
Like let them have their identity and use the pronouns they want.
And, you know, this is like, what was it, 2015, 2016?
And I remember his warning and I remember many other people like, this is going to spill over.
Like, if you can enforce this on a professor, and if you can enforce compelled speech, because Canada doesn't have the same free speech laws we do in America.
And if you can, like, where does it go?
How are you compelling it?
Well, it means through violence or through police or through the fear of being arrested, the fear of having your job taken away from you.
Like, this is literally what happens when you use laws to compel people.
Like, you have to have some sort of a punishment if they don't follow through, if they don't follow your orders.
And this is what he was worrying about.
And I remember at the time being like, I hope he's wrong.
Because there's also a difference between telling people they can't say something, which is what free speech suppression usually is, and that's bad enough.
But then telling people that they have to say something, compelling them to actually say something, putting words in their mouth and telling them you have to say this.
And it's not just, it's not, it's not pronouns.
It's not a small thing because when you use the she for a he, you're not only being forced to say something, but you're being forced to affirm and acquiesce to a claim that you don't agree with.
You're being forced to express a belief that's not yours.
I mean, it's like it's not much different from a dictatorship forcing someone to profess belief in a religion.
It's forced conversion, basically, is what it is.
And once you allow that, it doesn't matter.
Of course it's going to start somewhere small.
It's just pronouns.
It always starts that way.
But like I said, it's also, it's actually not small.
Pronouns are, there's a reason why the left makes a big deal out of it.
So anytime people on the right say, well, it's not a big deal in response to the left making a big deal about something, well, they wouldn't be making a big deal about it if it wasn't a big deal.
The fact that they're choosing this hill to defend should tell you that there's something here worth fighting over.
And then maybe more importantly, one of the things that you're doing when you're doing that is you're giving people, especially if you do it to young people, you're giving them an opportunity to be special and to get special treatment without any special act.
They haven't done anything that warrants that unique behavior.
It's also part of what you're describing is personality, right?
I mean, so if you're saying, oh, I'm a female, but I don't identify with girly things and I don't like the color pink and whatever.
Okay, that's your personality.
And it's fine.
There are many ways to be a woman.
There are many ways to be a man.
There's like almost infinite ways of doing it because each man and woman has their own personality, their own perspective of the world, and that's fine.
So I think that what I'm expressing is more, the kind of traditional idea is much more expansive because it allows you as a man to just, you know, be who you are.
You're still a man, but be who you are.
The idea now is that if you're, well, if you're a man, but you have interests or ideas that fall outside of the standard norm, now you lose your manhood.
You're actually a woman.
So they're actually reinforcing the gender binary while trying to destroy it at the same time, which is interesting.
But I think most of what they're trying to describe is actually just personality.
And now we have this situation where you could have a person who has five different genders and six sexual orientations, but no personality because their personality has been subsumed by all of these labels.
It's just in that particular case, thinking that you're going to fucking cure climate change by throwing soup on a priceless painting and then gluing yourself to a wall.
If you were one of those people that thought that there was a literal attack on the foundations of this country to try to destroy it from the youth up, what better way to do it than with social media reinforcing all this stuff?
I mean, how many TikTok videos have you seen?
Like Libs of TikTok is a fucking insane account.
And so many people get so angry at that account.
She's not creating anything.
She's curating.
So she's finding all these videos that absolutely exist.
And you're angry that someone puts these videos that actually exist of people actually saying insane things about recruiting kids and about teaching kids things in class that makes parents upset about gender and that all your kids are going to be trans and all these videos that she's posted and people are furious calling it this hard right, you know, far-right account of hate-mongering account.
Like it's a curated account.
She's just finding insane shit that kids are actually being exposed to en masse and bringing it to people that may not be aware of it.
That's why I really think Libs of TikTok is one of the most important journalists in America.
One of the only ones because there aren't many journalists out there that are actually doing their job of finding things people don't know about and alerting them to it because that's what you're supposed to do.
But I think a lot of it is, yeah, these are things that people post on their own.
Also, when she posts stuff from a children's hospital saying that these are the procedures we perform on kids, they're just reposting what the hospital said themselves.
But the point is that they don't want us to see it.
So the children's hospital, they've got it on their website and they want only the people who have already bought it.
Because if you're going to a children's hospital's website to look up gender affirmation care, quote unquote, then most of the time you've already bought in.
And so they want you to see that.
TikTok, they look at that as like it's all the young progressive people and they're okay with them seeing it.
But they don't want us outside of those bubbles to see these things.
Yeah, and the idea is against it is that it's misrepresenting, that she's unfairly highlighting these radical people that are not the norm.
But like, says who?
Says who.
These are just, all you're doing is looking at real videos.
Like if you look at Project Veritas and you catch Twitter employees talking about how they silence conservatives and they have like some hidden camera, the argument, oh, they caught those people off camera.
Like how do you fucking know?
Are you talking to them?
Like this is our only window into this.
Like to deny that you get a chance to see a doctor saying, oh, we'll get a kid in at 16.
Yeah, that's when we in Nashville, we got Vanderbilt Hospital, and they were doing this stuff to kids, too.
And I did my own Libs of TikTok routine where I put on Twitter, I had this whole thread outlining what Vanderbilt, all the services they provide.
And I was accused of the same thing.
Oh, you're taking it out of context, or this is misinformation.
I'm documented.
This is what they said.
This is on their website.
I have the documents.
I have the videos.
And they said all that.
But then the interesting thing is that after we reported on it, and it was this big deal, Vanderbilt Hospital, after a couple weeks, sent a letter to our state legislator saying that they're going to put a pause on gender affirmation surgery for minors.
Well, if you're pausing it, I thought it wasn't happening.
Because if you're pausing it, it means that it was happening.
Because, of course, it is happening, especially another thing that they do to kind of obfuscate is they say, well, genital surgeries are not happening to minors.
And even that isn't true because that is happening.
But that is more rare.
What is much more common are double mastectomies on minors.
And that is very common, and that's happening in almost every state in the country at exponentially increasing rates.
You're taking the body parts away from girls without them understanding, again, what they're actually giving up or what the consequences will be in the future.
And especially knowing what we know about the human mind and the development of the human mind, your frontal lobe is not even fully formed until you're in your 20s.
Give these people this, even to give them the option to change your life forever, irrevocably.
You're going to give them a surgery.
You're going to allow them to have a surgery or force them to have a surgery or encourage them to have a surgery that's going to change their life forever.
I mean, when I was growing up, I remember the job of adults was always to stop us from doing all the incredibly stupid things we always wanted to do.
Especially as you become a teenager, you're hormonal.
You're impulsive.
And so the jobs of an adult is to be the guiding force, to provide insight, to be a source of maturity.
But they've just abdicated that completely.
I mean, I was Dwayne Wade has a quote-unquote trans kid, the NBA player.
And now his ex-wife has come out and said that she thinks that he is encouraging this and has imposed it on his son so he can profit off of it, which seems like a fair theory to me.
But anyway, there was an interview he did where he was on a red carpet somewhere and he was being praised by the journalists.
Oh, you're so great.
Do you have advice for parents out there?
And he said that, yeah, your job as a parent is to sit back and see where your kids want to go and go there with them.
And I'm thinking, I mean, I have four kids.
And if I adopted that strategy as a parent, all of my kids would be dead by the time they're two years old.
Like, sit back and see where they want to go and just go with them?
That's like the opposite of your job as a parent.
Your job as a parent is to be, you can listen to what they want, but then you are going to, you have their desires and their opinions, and you're filtering it through your own understanding, your much superior understanding of reality.
And then you decide what makes sense for them to do.
Yeah, that's a ridiculous notion that you're just supposed to sit back and watch.
You're supposed to have wisdom.
You're supposed to have a life lived longer and more knowledge, more information, and you do your very best to help them develop and find their own way through life while protecting them from dangers and from things that they don't understand yet.
And this notion that this is the one time where we're supposed to abandon all these principles when it comes to gender, that's what's so confusing.
There's a political push for this that comes from the left.
And one of the things that I found when I was going over that prisoner case was that the whole thing about it where they made it optional, it was, I'll try to find this fucking article.
I know I saved it.
But the story about it was that it was something that George Soros was involved with.
Well, they really have no choice but to institute policies like this.
This is the corner they painted themselves into.
Because if they suggest that there's any, you have to offer any proof at all, then that is to acknowledge that there's some sort of reality outside of the individual whim.
Even to say that, well, there has to be a letter from, because this used to be the thing, but you've got to get a letter from two mental health providers who will affirm that this is true about you.
Well, they don't even want that because then who's to say, why does that person get to say?
He's like, only I. I'm the only one that gets to determine my own biological identity.
And you end up with policies like that.
And not surprising that George Soros is behind it.
Well, Oregon is one of the weirder ones because Oregon will allow places to prescribe testosterone to young girls when they're as young as 15 years old without consent from the parents at all.
There's not another thing that you can get at 15 that's going to change your life like that.
And once you do that, first of all, you're going to lose because it is true that the medical industry has largely bought into this.
And so you're going to lose that contest.
But what you should be pointing out is that, first of all, the people that you're appealing to as authorities are all the people who are making a lot of money off of this.
So the only people we should trust about the questions of gender affirmation are the ones who have a financial stake in it.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
And then also, I don't care what letters they have next to their name.
I don't care if they went to medical school.
If they're making claims, we can assess those claims on their merits.
We don't have to be credentialed to do that.
And I can say that what these doctors are saying just doesn't make any sense.
It is bizarre that so many in the community that we have always assumed is protecting the best interests of personal health and wellness, that these are the people that are saying it so often.
The money part scares the shit out of me because I don't want to think that that's real.
I mean, I want to hold out hope for the better aspects of human nature that people wouldn't do that and think of children and being able to diffuse responsibility and say, well, this is bigger than me and I'm just part of this and this is what we're doing now.
Yeah, you would hope a person individually wouldn't do that, but people definitely will do that.
I mean, acting as a group, you know, and when you've got the twin pressures of, well, you've got twin incentives of the political ideological incentives and the monetary incentives, that's very powerful.
And I think that does explain it.
I mean, there are, you know, there are like child endocrinology clinics barely exist anymore because they've all become transgender.
This is what they do now.
There are a lot of doctors who got into the medical field and they did a certain thing and then the transgender stuff came along and that's their whole, that's what they do.
It's the same for a lot of plastic surgeons.
This is basically their whole business now is doing the gender surgeries.
And so you see the incentive for them.
I mean, they have staked everything on this.
They've also staked their professional reputation because that's the other problem.
Not only is it the political incentive and the money, but if they admit that they're wrong, then they're also admitting that they have horribly disfigured and abused thousands, maybe millions of kids.
Look, if you're an adult and you want to do that and you understand who you are and what you are, and this is how you feel you should progress, you're an adult.
This is a free country.
You should be able to do whatever you want.
But when you're talking about doing that to children, the fact that so many people are on board and so many people are angry.
People are going to be angry at us that we're having these conversations.
And I also think that this shouldn't be happening to over the last five years, there were at least 4,780 adolescents who started puberty blockers and had a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis.
unidentified
It says it's kind of undercounted, but that's about 100,000 people a year.
Is there a database where they're looking at long-term results of how this works out in terms of, I mean, are they studying this now in terms of following these kids?
Because if we don't have long-term data on what happens when you give young children puberty blockers or double mastectomies, I mean, are they at least following up on these kids so we can have long-term data in the future?
I've asked this question of, I've asked this question of some of the, you know, some of the detransitioners who went through this and then detransed and what was the follow-up process like?
And I've heard different things, but it's not extensive.
Like I haven't heard that they're following up five years later just to see how you're doing kind of thing.
I certainly haven't heard that.
And the one thing that I always hear is that is that if they have complications, it's very difficult for them to get those complications addressed because the doctors that did this to them aren't interested in dealing with it.
And then there are other doctors too who don't know how to deal with some of this stuff.
Yeah, I mean, we did a rally on this a couple weeks ago in Nashville against child mutilation, and we had a D-transitioner named Chloe Cole who came in and spoke.
She's 18 years old, and she got double mastectomy when she was, I believe, 16.
And she's up, she spoke at our rally, and she's up at the microphone telling her story.
And that's all she was doing.
She was there to tell her story.
I wanted her there to tell her story.
And she's getting screamed at by counterprotesters in the crowd saying, F you fascist to an 18.
Call her a fascist because she's talking about medical malpractice and getting her breast removed when she was 16 years old before she knew what the fuck was going on, talking about this horrible experience that she's had.
It's bizarre to me that no one is standing up to try to counter your claims and wanting to go public and wanting to have some sort of a public debate.
Because I would imagine that something that's so ideologically rigid in people's minds, someone would at least have the ego to step up and say, I can counter these arguments and I could be the person to publicly shame this person and have a debate with them and trounce them with facts and reality and opinions and describe the shared experiences of these people that have gone through this and it's greatly enhanced their lives, but no one's doing that.
I mean, if you go to Rotten Tomatoes right now, I think we have something like, I don't know, five reviews or something.
We've got thousands and thousands of audience reviews, but we've got, I think, five reviews.
And none of them are from the major media outlets either.
So they're just ignoring it.
But I don't think they don't want to sit down in an uncontrolled environment and talk to you because I think, again, that they know at some level that what they're saying doesn't make any sense.
And they also know that they know they can't answer the question.
I've staked everything on this what is a woman question.
And if one of them could come along and coherently answer it, then that would just blow me out of the water.
I mean, everything's done then.
And they've had all this time to come up with it with an answer, and none of them have gone with it.
So they're not going to sit down because they know that that's going to be a big part of the conversation.
Like, we've got to start by you defining your terms.
And if you can't do that, then I don't know how to talk to you if we can't define the terms.
Well, they always want to dismiss you as some far-right talking point person.
That's the first way they do it.
And to ignore your film seems to me to you're ignoring an opportunity to take something apart that you disagree with.
Like, why would they do that?
They do that with everything else.
One of the more unique things is the ignorant.
They feel like things are moving in the right direction.
It's almost like strategically, it would be detrimental to engage with you because they must understand that a lot of these belief systems that they've adhered to, they're cult-like.
It's ideological.
It doesn't make sense.
It's not grounded in reality.
Also, there are inherent dangers to doing this to children that are very difficult to ignore and that parents are going to resonate with instantaneously when they think about their children and how vulnerable children are and how malleable they are and how susceptible they are to cultural trends.
And the fact that they won't engage with you on this, it really speaks volumes.
I think they also realize that, and we call it ideological and political.
I think it's also, it's really a spiritual, it's like a religious claim.
I mean, gender ideology is a religion, I think.
It behaves in every way like a religion.
And it's actually interesting.
It's kind of revealing that one thing you hear from the proponents is this claim that actually there are analogs for transgenderism all across the world in other cultures and throughout history.
That's what they always say.
We tested this in the film.
We went outside of the Western culture bubble.
We went all the way to Africa to talk to a traditional tribe there about this stuff.
And they were just their minds were blown by it in a bad way.
They had never encountered ideas like this before because, of course, the gender binary is not a Western construct.
The rejection of the gender binary is a Western construct.
But going back to when they point to what are supposed to be analogs or other examples of this kind of thing in other cultures, sometimes they're just making it up.
But then there are times when there might be a culture that has some notion of maybe a man acting out the part of a woman or something like that.
That happens in other cultures.
Cross-dressing, yeah, that exists in other cultures.
But the difference is, number one, they don't, in those cultures, they don't think that the man actually is a woman.
Like, they don't believe in pregnant men in those cultures.
They know that he's acting out something.
That's the point.
And then the other point, too, is that in these other cultures where this exists, very often it is like a religious, spiritual sort of thing.
They talk about, in fact, they include it now in the LGBT Ackerman acronym as Two Spirit, which is supposed to be the Native American version of transgenderism.
Yes.
And that was invented in 1990 by gay activists.
So it's not like this goes all the way back to the Comanches on the Great Plains.
But even that, think about the Two Spirit.
It's spiritual.
That's a religious thing, which is really what they're doing here.
But what is, you know what, Denny, I looked it up once.
Demisexual is a person who needs to be emotionally attached to someone or needs to emotionally connect to someone in order to be sexually attracted to them.
And you hear that and you're like, well, that's women.
That's what a woman, that's like every woman.
And then there's also, it's ridiculous.
I don't remember the label, but there's the opposite of that, too.
They're the people that don't need the emotional attachment, but they still have sexual erotic feelings.
I was under the impression that in Native American populations that that two-spirit thing was, that was a historical thing, that they had always had members of their tribe that they valued that seemed to have the perspective of both a female and a male, and that they could make sense of things.
The term two-spirit was coined, I believe, in 1990.
What they'll claim is that, yeah, the term might have been coined 1990, but it speaks to something that existed before.
But even if that's true, my point is that, number one, you are talking about something spiritual, okay, which is not what the gender ideologues are claiming here.
Now, if they want to just admit that they're making a spiritual claim and what they're claiming is that, I don't know, a man can end up with the soul of a woman or something like that, that would be progress, at least, because now we are framing this conversation correctly.
I still think it's an incoherent claim, but I mean, how can a man have the soul of a woman?
Sort of by definition, a man's, if a man has a soul, then it's a man's soul by definition.
At least if they would just admit that this is what we're trying to point to is something, some kind of spiritual essence, then we can have that conversation.
And I still disagree, but at least you're admitting that there's nothing physical here.
Most of the people we talked to on that side were really closed off and didn't want to open up and say anything.
That was not the case with Marcy Bowers.
Although there's an interesting thing that made it into the film there where I brought up transabled people, which is a real phenomenon, people who feel like they have two arms.
Someone who has two arms feels like he should have one arm.
Should we take that self-identity seriously?
And what I was told by Marcy Bowers is no, that's kooky, exact words.
But then the WPATH, which is the world, which is the, you know, supposed to be the preeminent transgender health organization in the world, they had their conference, I think it was in Canada, a few weeks ago, and they had a guy presenting something in the conference saying that actually this kind of body dysmorphia is now a valid gender identity.
A eunuch, you know, someone who's a eunuch who wants to amputate their male genitals and yet does not identify as female, just wants to amputate them.
They identifies that way.
That now that's a valid, that's a valid gender identity.
So I was told a few months before that that that's kooky.
And then fast forward a few months, WPATH is saying, well, that's a valid gender identity.
That's what's interesting about the social contagion aspect of it is that it does seem to spread and change and morph depending on what people accept and what people are willing to agree to.
And then once people do agree to that, that a eunuch is a valid sexual identity, well, that'll become doctrine.
And because it makes sense too, because if what we're being told is that you cannot disagree with someone's self-identity, then there's no floor there.
I mean, then whatever someone claims about themselves, we have to affirm it.
And that includes trans species, transracial, all that kind of stuff.
And that's not even, I don't even think of that as a slippery slope.
Something like transracialism, that's not further down on the slope.
I mean, the reason why there's differs, the differences in the way human beings look and the way we evolve is because we spread to different climates in the world, and the human body adapted to those climates.
It's the reason why people are so pale in the place where there's no fucking sun.
I mean, you're probably as deeply invested into this after doing that film as anybody in terms of the amount of time and effort that you've put into this subject.
Do you ever sit back and wonder where this goes?
Like if this continues to accelerate, because it seems like something that's accelerating.
Is it just a pendulum swing?
It's going to go so far one way that people are going to reject it and it's going to swing back the other way.
And all of their stories, and I've talked to a bunch of them, and there are other interviews that are out there telling their stories.
The stories are just so infuriating and tragic what's happened to these kids.
And now they're stuck.
It's like the adult version of themselves is stuck in this prison that was stuck with choices that the child version made, but really the child version didn't make those choices because children can't make choices like that.
The choices that were imposed on them.
And that's the kind of thing that, yeah, when people hear those stories, I think most Americans, no matter where they fall on the spectrum, they hear that and they immediately viscerally react a certain way.
So I think that we could see a backlash because when it comes to gender ideology in general, I think it's a much longer, much longer fight.
Not exactly, because what I can say, so the Daily Wire, when the film came out, we got 300,000 subscribers from the film, people that wanted to watch the film, 300,000 subscribers in a couple of weeks.
Prior to that, the Daily Wire over five years had gotten 600,000 subscribers.
So we increased it by 50% in just a couple of weeks.
In terms of how many total people have been exposed to the film, it's hard to tabulate because we've got all the people on the Daily Wire platform, and they're all the clips that are circulating all over, especially on TikTok.
Apparently, it's a big thing on TikTok.
I'm not on there.
And I wasn't supposed to mention it on air, but then also there's like these bootleg copies people have, you know, which you shouldn't watch, but they're uploaded to other platforms.
So the point is, it's just like, it's just a presence.
And for you, when you had a sense of what this problem was before you made the documentary, is it worse than you thought it was?
Like, what is it like for you as a person, as a parent, going over this material and investing so much time into it and then having a newfound sense of what this problem really is?
Yeah, it was filming it was, you know, we would go, I can remember we went to California, we went to San Francisco, we're walking around San Francisco.
That's where we talked to the sex change surgeon, Mark DeCano, and talking to people on the street.
And yeah, it was very emotionally.
It's just sitting across the room with people like this and they're saying all this stuff, it's emotionally draining.
But then coming home and seeing my own kids and knowing that all this is like waiting for them out in the world and they're younger.
They haven't been exposed to it yet.
Thank God.
But it's there.
There are these forces out there that want to take their innocence, take their, again, their knowledge of themselves away from them.
And it does fill you with a lot of trepidation.
I mean, parents, especially parents of younger kids, are just terrified.
I talk to parents all the time that are terrified of this.
They're terrified of the day when their daughter comes home and says, I'm a boy, like has happened to so many other parents.
Do you take any hope in the response to this film?
Because the response has been from the people that I've talked to, and obviously it's a biased group, has been overwhelmingly concerned that at least you've sort of sounded the alarm and let a lot of people know that aren't on TikTok, that aren't paying attention to social media, but then some parent at a volleyball game pulls them aside and says, there's something you should watch.
Yeah, because they're all, they exist in their bubble.
They're all far left.
And these bubbles are very real and powerful.
That's the other thing that really jumped out of me making the film is that you go into these areas.
I think it's one of the reasons why some of these people were willing to sit down with us to begin with is that they live in this bubble where nobody would ever challenge these ideas.
Everyone is bought in.
And they can't even imagine that anybody would disagree.
And that's our media.
They're all Los Angeles, California, whatever.
That's Hollywood media, New York, right?
DC.
So they live in these bubbles and they just can't, they've insulated themselves from criticism.
I haven't specifically heard from someone who was like far left, purple-haired, and they had a awakening moment from the film.
I hope that that happens and it has happened.
I haven't heard that.
But it's more I've heard from a lot of people who didn't believe or weren't willing to accept that this was a big problem and now understand otherwise.
And then, yeah, some people who identify more on the left and were sort of okay with it and weren't very comfortable with it, but they were okay with it.
And they thought that, well, let's just be polite and go along with it.
Then they see the film and they hear us talking about it and they see that this is not something they can countenance.
It's hard because, like I said, it seems as though we've already seen the craziest manifestation of this.
So I do think that we move on to this destruction of reality will continue and it will get into other forms of identity.
And so transracialism, even trans species and all that kind of stuff.
So I think that that will happen.
And what I'm worried about is for my kids' generation, Gen Z, fast forward 20 or 30 years, what does it look like for them?
What does that generation look like?
What's the suicide rate among Gen Z and the youngest generation in 20 or 30 years after they've all, so many of them have bought into this and maybe they've gotten the drugs, the surgeries, and then 20 or 30 years hence, what's that?
I think we're looking at a just the suicide rate already is sky high.
I think we're looking at a historic, unfathomable epidemic in the future.
Do you think that litigation, do you think that people suing people for having done this to them when they were younger, do you think that in any way would try to right this ship?
I don't think it writes it, but I do think that needs, and there needs to be legislation that opens up that possibility because as it stands right now, people that are the victims of this, they don't really have any legal recourse.
They don't?
I don't think so.
This is what I've heard.
Essentially, they don't.
One of the reasons is that, yeah, the doctors perform these procedures, but the procedures are illegal to do.
And it is ethically and morally, it's medical malpractice, but it's not legally medical malpractice because they're allowed to do this to kids.
You don't want to be despairing because despairing is you've given up hope.
And then what's the point?
What's the point of even talking about it at that point?
So I'm not despairing, but sometimes I feel close to the edge of that, I suppose.
And it has been, you know, it's on one hand, I feel like there's not a lot of hope for the future, but then at the same time, we put the film out and it gets the kind of response that it does.
And I do see this building backlash against at least what's happening to kids.
So I think what I mentioned before is kind of it.
That's the tension is that we do have the numbers, and so there's the hope in that.
But the institutions that run the country are so completely captured that to claim those institutions back, that's the generational project.
Like what bizarre narrative are they trying to push where they promoted the president getting interviewed by this super bizarre TikTok star that talks about being a woman for 260 days.
And meanwhile, Biden doesn't believe any of this stuff.
I mean, he's 80 years old.
He lived the first 70 years of his life and nobody was questioning whether men or men are women or women.
For the first 70 years of his life, men used men's restroom and men were men and women or women.
And then I'm supposed to believe that at the age of 70, he had this awakening moment and realized that everything he thought he knew about biological sex is wrong.
Yeah, this is white liberals who are trying to colonize.
They accuse the other, they're always using the word colonization, calling us colonizers, but this is actual colonization of language that they're attempting by going to Spanish speaking people and say, you have to completely fundamentally alter your entire language because I don't like it.
And I'm not even, I don't even speak Spanish.
I don't like it.
You have to change it.
Of course they're going to reject it.
But again, that's when you get outside of the white liberal Western bubble, you don't have to go that far outside of it.
But once you do, you find that these are people who just don't, they don't have these fundamental presuppositions that we have here.
So for them, it just doesn't make any, it doesn't make any sense.
For us, we've grown up with a lot of these ideas, like the idea that sex and gender are two different things.
Maybe we weren't very aware of it, but it was just kind of floating out there, these ideas, and we've absorbed them whether we know it or not.
And so there are claims that the gender ideologues make that don't make any sense.
But at first, to a lot of people, it seems like they do.
It just seems like intuitively it makes sense because they've grown up in this culture where these ideas are out there.
But you go to cultures where these ideas don't exist at all and you start talking about this, it reveals the total absurdity of it.
Yeah, I was just small market radio for, I don't know, eight years or so.
And then I just started a blogging.
I started a website, a blog, and I was just writing my random thoughts on anything.
And I managed to gather a following relatively quickly.
And this is back when on social media, it was like the Wild West days, and you could actually access, you build a following, you could actually access your whole following, and you could basically say whatever you want, you weren't going to get kicked off.
So I was able to take advantage of that.
But then once I saw them closing all of that off and you build your Facebook following, and you post something, and they'll only show it to like 0.1% of your followers or whatever.
At that point, it became clear that I need to do this independently is not feasible.
So I went over and worked for the Blaze, which is Glenn Beck's outfit, for a few years and then ended up with the Daily Wire.
Initially, when you were first on social media, everybody sort of assumed that you're going to have these competing ideologies.
You're going to have people on the right and people on the left, and they're going to have disputes and they're going to mock each other and memes.
And it was seemingly how it was for a while until it seemed like Donald Trump.
When Donald Trump came along, then people realized like, hey, this is a real problem.
These ideologies can actually promote a president and this guy can get into office.
We're opposed to him.
We have to do everything we can to stop this from happening.
And one of the ways to stop it from happening is to sort of marginalize or silence right-wing voices online.
But what that does is hardens people to this notion that there is a conspiracy against them and that there is censorship and that there is an ideology that's overwhelmingly supported by the media that a large percentage of the population is opposed to.
And that rational, reasonable discourse amongst people with differing ideas is discouraged, which is fucking dangerous.
It's not good for understanding what ideas are good and what ideas are invalid and seeing them all argued and fleshed out and having debates has always been the way we can and discern what's right and what's not, what's correct, what resonates with me, what makes sense, who makes a more valid, logical argument.
That's one of the more disturbing aspects of controlled tech, of tech being censored.
And one of the reasons why I have great hope in Elon Musk taking over Twitter.
Because I think Elon has famously stated that he's a free speech absolutist.
And he believes that people should be able to have differing opinions, speak civilly about these differing opinions, and do it in an open forum.
Yeah, I think you're right that Donald Trump was a turning point because that was something that from the perspective of the powerful elites, that's just not, that's not supposed to happen.
He's not supposed to become president.
And that was allowed to happen.
And he used social media largely to do it, bypassing traditional media and just going right to people on to the people, essentially.
And they said, well, we can't allow this to happen anymore.
So then they decided to shut it down.
I also think that they realized that you can try to control people by telling them what they can and can't do, punishing them if they do what they're not supposed to do, what you told them they can't do.
You can control people that way, which is what, of course, they do that.
But then what's a more effective strategy is to control what people believe.
Like if you can get inside their heads and control what they think, then you don't need all the laws that tell them what not to do because you already own them.
So you can control their behavior that way.
And that's what a lot of this stuff is with let's police misinformation or disinformation.
We live in the information age.
Like we're all exposed every day to more information than probably the average person in 1800 was in a lifetime.
And this is the world we live in.
So if you can control that, control the information, control people are exposed to, manipulate what they think and what their beliefs are, then that's much more powerful than simply passing laws and telling you what you can and can't do.
Yeah, and that's why I think it's so important to have a neutral platform like Twitter, as opposed to all these other platforms that have emerged that have emerged in response.
They've emerged in response to the censorship of right-wing voices.
Because the problem is those become ideological bubbles for the right.
And even in those places, like I've heard on Truth Media, If you say disparaging things about January 6th or say disparaging things about whether or not the vote was stolen, that you'll be censored, which is like, Jesus Christ, this is absolutely the wrong approach to this.
Now you're going to encourage even more right-wing ideological thought bubble stereotype behavior, and you're not going to get the real logical debate, which is what's important.
Because there's a lot of people that, you know, this idea that there's people on the right and people on the left, and that's it.
That's nonsense.
Many of these people share very similar ideas and very similar hopes for society and culture.
And I think far more people are probably in the middle.
They just, they see something that's abhorrent on the left, and they go, I can't support Antifa.
Or they see something that's horrible on the right.
Well, I can't support these people.
And they have to find a team that they join.
And you feel like this team is the good team, and they're going to lead the country in the right direction.
And that team is fascist or racist or whatever it is.
And if you're connected to that team, you have to buy wholesale all the other shit that's a part of that team.
The only thing that's going to solve that is open debate and communication where people get to really evolve their own ideas and see these ideas discussed.
I think most of the people that are concerned about the future, they're concerned about the economy and they're concerned about the environment.
And that's one of the reasons why environmental fear-mongering has taken this front and center stage with the left because they want it to be the thing that people think about the most and that this is your you're thinking about the future of the world.
And if you vote right, you're damning our country to destruction beyond our imagination.
The oceans are going to boil and we're all fucked.
And maybe this doesn't come through in some of the polls that people take.
And when you poll voters and say, what are the issues that you care most about?
It's economy is always number one.
And that probably is true.
But people don't think of their kids as a political issue, even though the left has turned it into that.
But that's why this push to indoctrinate kids into gender ideology, take away parental rights, the grooming of kids that goes on in the school system, the drag queen story, all that kind of stuff, that does mobilize voters, even if they don't say it on a poll.
It mobilizes voters because you're going after their kids.
Now, from you starting out initially writing this blog and developing a social media following, how have your thoughts and your view of the world, how has it evolved and changed?
I mean, attacking a politician has supported the value, or at least the home of a politician has supported the very ideas that have enforced that shit.
Yeah, I grew up, I have five brothers and sisters.
I grew up in a Catholic house, still Catholic.
And yeah, I went to public school.
So I don't send my kids to public school largely because I went there myself.
But I went into kind of a liberal area.
And we were always encouraged as kids to, and the situation wasn't nearly as bad then as it is now in public schools, but it was still public school system was very hostile to people with conservative values.
And so we were encouraged by my parents to stand up for values.
We were always told that if you get in trouble in school because you're standing up for yourself, you're not going to be in trouble at home.
If you're just causing trouble to cause trouble, you will be in trouble.
But if you hear the teacher say something that isn't correct or that is like propaganda and you raise your hand and disagree with it, then we were encouraged to do that from a young age.
And again, it wasn't just that it happened and that the media celebrated and all that and Woman of the Year.
It wasn't just that.
It was that I noticed it seemed like people on the right, conservatives, were just were going along with it, were willing to accept it.
And that's what scared me.
And so I've always seen it as the left's overall project as they wage this assault on life, marriage, and gender now.
It's kind of the three-pronged approach.
I wrote a book back in, I don't know, it's like 2016 called The Unholy Trinity about their three-pronged assault on life, marriage, and gender, redefining all three of these things, which are fundamental pillars of human society.
And so if you can redefine those and tear those down, then you've won.
Have you taken a lot of time to think about what causes people to have these fundamental beliefs?
And I'm of the opinion that most people sort of subscribe to a predetermined pattern of thinking and behavior that either they see around them that's reinforced or that resonates with them because of their family and their upbringing.
Like what causes people to be so rigid in their ideologies that they're willing to subscribe wholesale to this idea that children can determine their gender at five years old and that a life isn't a life until it's out of the vagina, including at nine months old.
Yeah, I think, well, a lot of it is the environment you grew up in, and you grew up around these ideas.
And if you went to public school, I mean, you know, kids today, especially, go to public school, and you're there for six hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year for 12 or 13 years.
And that's the culture there.
And then the kid leaves, but they don't actually escape that culture because now they're on their phone and they're just in that cloud all the time.
And they're in a world where all these ideas are just assumed.
You don't even question them.
And especially if you can introduce, you know, kids at a very young age, they don't even have the mental capacity to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
They don't really have the capacity to be truly skeptical about something.
Skepticism is a skill that you learn as you get older.
They don't really, they don't have that.
So they'll just accept whatever you tell them.
There's a reason why if you tell a four-year-old that there's a, you know, a fat man flying through the sky comes down the chimney, they just believe it.
Like they don't even, they might have a few questions, but the questions are all about the details about this fat guy.
The questions aren't questioning the basic premise that you've presented to them.
So if you can get to kids that young, then there's a good chance you'll have them forever because this is just built into their minds.
And one of the reasons why the left, this is why they were so upset about the so-called don't say gay bill in Florida, which, of course, there was no such bill.
And all that bill was saying is, don't talk to kids about this before third grade.
And they treated that like some sort of apocalyptic scenario because they need to get to the kids before.
They want to get to the kids in kindergarten when they're the most vulnerable.
And you can just tell them anything and they'll believe it.
And for a lot of people, they just keep believing it.
Most people never stop to analyze the beliefs that they've always held in their heads.
Wherever you're on the spectrum, that's most people.
You never stop and really scrutinize your own beliefs that you've always had.
It seems to me that the only thing that stops that is they're confronted by the realities of achieving things in the modern world.
And that, you know, just getting responsibility, working, making your way through life, those are the things that sort of turn people into more into having more conservative mindset.
Which is one of the more bizarre aspects of all this shit to me is that I don't necessarily see, this is why I'm asking you, where's this go?
I don't see a clear path to logic and maturity.
It doesn't seem like people are going to abandon some of these ideas that are not just ridiculous, but dangerous and probably ultimately detrimental for who knows what number of young people they're going to go down this road.
I don't see this clear, like there's going to come a point in time in their life where they're going to recognize.
Like, what's that old expression?
Show me a young man who is not a liberal, and I'll show you a man with no heart.
Show me an old man who's not conservative, and I'll show you a man with no brain.
I mean, and that's, but they've also been told that being, that opposing ideas are physically dangerous and that if you're around opposing ideas, it could actually do you harm.
And I think that they really believe that.
I mean, think about if someone really believes that, takes that to heart, you know, you're setting something up.
I mean, Ben Shapiro shows up at this podcast conference, and they call his very presence harmful.
We've gone beyond ideas.
It's like a person who has those ideas and isn't even speaking them, his presence, his essence, is harmful to you.
I think a lot of these things have gotten worse, but it was, I mean, you saw the seeds of it even back.
I mean, it wasn't all that long ago, 10 years ago.
I think it was still there.
One of the difference, though, was that social media existed and it had already taken over society, but you at least were allowed to, for a while, social media was a forum for actual discussion.
And it might not have been the most intelligent discussion all the time, but you could be exposed to both sides of any debate on social media for a period of time.
Well, one of the more interesting things about a film like yours coming out onto the Daily Wire is that people would subscribe to the Daily Wire and at least potentially be exposed to other ideas that way.
That if you're you've got to assume that the sheer numbers of people that watch your documentary, some of them have to be liberal.
And that might at least expose them to other ideas that they're getting suppressed from in other places.
I mean, originally it started as basically a conservative kind of news site, which is a political site, which there's still a lot of that.
But one thing that we talked about the Daily Wire is wanting to build an actual cultural institution on the right, which doesn't exist right now.
You find that all over on the left, right?
They've got a bunch of them, but there really isn't that on the right.
The only thing that you could that could make a case for itself would be Fox News.
But I think even for Fox News, the reach, I mean, they reach a lot of people, but it's just, it's like, it's just, it's Fox News, and it's seen a certain way.
And so its ability to impact the culture, I think, is somewhat limited because of that.
But with the Daily Wire, the desire is to build an actual culture institution that can reach into all these different areas of culture and really make an impact that way.
I'm not out there in the film preaching that point of view, but I, as the person behind the film, I had a point of view that I wanted to get across.
A lot of the other films that the Daily Wire has made, though, especially the fictional films, there really isn't, there isn't like a political point of view.
It's just it's supposed to simply be entertainment without the political stuff, which I think is a lot of people miss that back when you could find those kinds of movies, which are increasingly hard to find.
Yeah, I actually think people say that, oh, we're headed for a civil war and all that.
And I don't think that we are headed for a civil war because the situation in our country is very different now than it was in 1860 in a lot of ways.
And in one way, is that the divide is not as explicitly geographical.
I mean, there is a geographical component to it, but you can't just split it down the middle, right?
Everything's mingled together.
So I don't know if we really have the atmosphere for a real civil war.
But I do think that our country is probably more divided now than it was in the Civil War because there's just this vast chasm that separates one side from the other.
There are no shared beliefs.
There are no shared values at all, at least from the two ends of the political spectrum.
It's not even a spectrum anymore because there is this severing down the middle of it.
That's one of the reasons why political debates are so fruitless often is because in order to have a constructive conversation with someone or even a constructive debate, you have to have some shared frame of reference that you're both referring back to.
And if you don't have that, then what are you talking about?
That's one of the reasons why, you know, I can sit around in a room with other conservatives and have really passionate debates that feel productive because we agree on the fundamental stuff, but now we're just arguing about some of the details, some of the things that you build on top of the foundation.
But when you don't even share the foundation, then there's nowhere to go.
You reach this impasse.
Like I did in what is a woman.
You eventually come back to, well, what is truth?
How do we know if there's a truth?
Well, once the conversation devolves into that, there's nowhere to go from there.
There's not a compromise in gay men that want to be married, they're in love, and they want to formalize their bonds so they could see their partner if there's a medical emergency or if there's a death where you assign assets to your loved ones.
Well, the issue is that from my perspective and from the perspective of most human societies that have existed in history, is that marriage is the context in which the procreative union occurs.
Marriage is the foundation for the family.
It's something that is reserved for that because the male-female union has this capacity to create life, whereas no other union has that capacity.
And so it is a different kind of thing.
And it makes sense to call it something different.
It's like if human society were to collapse overnight and we all woke up with an amnesia and didn't remember anything about what happened before and we're rebuilding society from scratch and we look around and we see that, oh, there are some couplings over here that have this weird habit of creating people and there are other couplings where there are no people being created.
We would probably call that something different.
It's a different kind of thing.
It's also more important to society.
Like society needs that.
You're going to keep society going because you're creating people.
And yeah, that's one of the reasons why I would also, you know, if we want to call it heterosexual polygamy, I'm not a proponent of that because when two people create another person, the person, the child that they've created, now needs and deserves and has a right to be raised in a stable environment with a mom and a dad who are living together in the house.
That's what we should endeavor as a society to provide every child.
And children need both.
A child needs a mom and a dad.
That's the way nature has set it up, right?
So even this, you know, the idea of, like, well, two men will raise a baby.
So are we saying that the mom is not, we don't, the mom is disposable here, expendable.
Well, I think you can have single-parent households, right?
But in a single-parent household, and the child can be raised by a single parent, and the child can turn out okay and have a great and fulfilling life.
But it's going to be not because there's only one parent.
It's in spite of that.
That's a hurdle you have to get over.
The child is still being deprived of something that is important.
So to consign a child to that to begin with and say, well, we're going to give you two dads rather than a mom and a dad.
Because the child there was a mom involved in creating the child, but she's not going to be anywhere in the picture.
I'm just of the view that that's not, that the mom is not expendable.
She plays a necessary role that cannot be replaced by a man.
I cannot be my child's mother.
My children have a mother.
They need her.
She does something special and unique in our family.
And if they didn't have her, it doesn't mean that they're not going to be able to function anymore as human beings, but they're going to be deprived of something, something important.
But even if that is beneficial to have a mother involved and a father involved, surely having one parent only, even though it's not ideal, is certainly better than being in foster care.
It's certainly better than being in a home somewhere where there's no parental figure at all.
And I would think there's a lot of people that there are out there that are living a life like that, unfortunately.
There's a lot of kids that are not adopted.
There's a lot of kids that are in foster care.
Wouldn't it be better for those kids to be raised by a gay couple who's married?
I think every child deserves the best possible situation, the best chance that we can give them.
And so I would say that every child, we should be looking for a man-woman couple.
And also keep in mind, too, that especially when it comes to babies, this changes as the kids get a little bit older, but with babies who are up for adoption, there's actually a line five miles long of married couples that want to adopt babies.
And they have to wait.
They're on waiting lists.
to parents that have been through this they've been on waiting lists for years so um this idea that there's a scarcity of man woman couples willing to adopt kids i just don't i don't i don't think that that's even true to begin with i think it's a little bit of a kind of a misnomer it's foster kids that have the issue right kids that are 10 11 12 yeah that's where it becomes it becomes more of a challenge as as kids get older um most people who are adopting are looking for,
you know, they want a baby so they can raise the child from as close to birth as possible.
Do you think of gay marriage as a personal freedom issue, that you should be able to do that?
If you were born gay and that's who you are and you meet another person that's gay and you fall in love and decide that you want to be bonded in a union, isn't that a personal freedom issue?
I mean, that doesn't change the nature of marriage, though.
It's a little bit like I say that what's the definition of a woman?
Well, a woman is someone who by her nature can conceive children in her womb and bear children.
And then the response is always, well, what about women who are infertile?
Does that destroy your definition of woman?
And it doesn't because it's still a woman's nature to bear children.
Not every woman will, and there will be disease and infertility and old age and all these things that will preclude that, but it's still of her nature to do so.
And I would say the same thing for marriage.
I mean, it is natural in a marriage for procreation to occur.
It's not always going to happen in reality, though, but that's still one of the natural functions of marriage.
And married couples who can't conceive children.
There are other ways to be parents, like adoption, for example.
I mean, you can have a very fulfilling life if you just follow your pursuits and your dreams and your interests and you find someone that shares those interests with you and you share time together.
It's about what this institution, marriage is an institution, and what is it and what purpose does it serve?
And I do not agree with tearing down or changing this definition, especially because the people who have changed the definition haven't come up with a new one.
So they say, well, that's not what marriage is.
So for thousands of years, we said marriage is the procreative union.
And then we had the other side that came along and said, well, it's not that.
Okay, well, then, like, what is it exactly?
And I know you said, well, it's people who love each other.
Two people who love each other.
Well, but then why two people?
Why do they have to love each other?
You know, all these kinds of questions.
You get into, what if they're in the same family?
What if brothers and sisters want to marry?
And I know every time that comes up, the advocates for gay marriage will say, well, that's a slippery slope argument.
That's fallacious.
But it's actually not.
It's like we're trying to get to what do you even think this institution is now since you've rejected out what we were saying it was.
And I've never found a compelling definition.
And any definition offered, it's like, well, what's even the point then?
I just don't see how a gay marriage in any way damages a straight marriage.
I don't see it at all.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
It just seems to me that people want to be...
Look, if you wanted to look at logic, especially in our modern society, which is pretty fucked when it comes to relationships, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of all marriages and a divorce anyway.
They don't make it.
I don't know if anything would damage marriage and damage the institution of marriage.
It's the option of divorce.
I don't think gay people and gay people getting married in any way, shape, or form changes a bond that you have with your wife.
It's just called marriage.
It's a human-invented thing.
If we decide that gay people can get married too, I just don't see how it damages anything.
I don't think it tears down the definition of marriage in any way.
It just opens up the possibility that people who are gay won't be discriminated against.
But it's also true that the advocates for what we call now traditional marriage, which I just call marriage, but the advocates for traditional marriage put themselves at a disadvantage by allow, especially in the churches, like allowing this rampant divorce to occur.
And then you've already sort of given up on some marriage is supposed to be monogamous and permanent, as well as procreative.
Well, you've given up monogamy and permanence.
And so now it's not, that's two of the three legs gone.
And so now this assault was waged on the procreative part of it.
And it was difficult to withstand it because the institution had already been weakened.
So I agree with you there.
But my answer to that is to try to reinforce what marriage is, not to just give up on it entirely.
And I still think you're left with this question of, like, if marriage is not what I'm saying it is, then why do we even need it?
I mean, you're saying it's a man-made institution.
Yes.
But you're also, like, the way that you're presenting it, it's also, it's a totally meaningless institution.
Look, there's a massive responsibility when you're married and when you have children to keep your family together and keep everybody happy and healthy.
And there's great reward to that.
But it doesn't always work out.
People change.
People are fucked up.
It doesn't always work.
And so I don't think it should be outlawed because 50% of the people fall apart.
Just like I don't think it has any effect whatsoever on a straight couple if a gay couple decides that they want to make it official.
And that's what it is to them.
It gives them a feeling that they're accepted and appreciated and that they're not discriminated against because they happen to be homosexual.
Well, if it's not subjective and it's not symbolic, it codifies and protects and gives a name to a thing that actually exists, which are man-woman couples creating people, creating babies.
But why is there something wrong with that, of someone's personal choice?
Why is it wrong that two people are like, you know, I am deeply committed to work and I don't want to sacrifice any of my career and I don't want to ruin a kid because I'm constantly at the office, but that's where I get deep satisfaction and that's what I'm focused on.
And the woman says, that's great because I don't want children either.
I really am attached to my interests and my career and what I like to do.
That's not damaging your relationship with your wife and your family.
I certainly don't think of it as a threat to my marriage or my family.
Why is it wrong if they have a fulfilling and wonderful life together with that choice?
If their thing is that they just want to have a bond between the two of them to just take it to the next level, let everybody know we are married.
If I die, my money's going to go to Helen.
And if Helen dies, I'm going to mourn her because she was my wife and now I'll be a widower.
To some people, that distinction gives them peace and security and makes them feel better about the relationship.
They're both so committed that they've legally signed documents that say that they're bound by law and under the eyes of God or whatever you believe in.
But don't you think that people should have the freedom to live their life in that way?
I think human beings vary widely in a huge way.
And I think there's some human beings that find a very fulfilling life just reading books and traveling and experiencing different things and seeing art and doing whatever the fuck they want to do.
And they don't necessarily have to have kids to live a fulfilling life that way.
If they choose to do that with someone who they have a loving bond with and who they get married to, I don't think it's a bad thing that they don't want to have kids.
I think the harm comes from on a societal level when we start breaking down these basic central institutions like the institution of the family and of marriage.
That's where the harm comes from.
And the more that people believe, the more that we build a society where it's believed that marriage is objectively meaningless, right?
It's entirely subjective.
It's just not making you feel better.
The more that we build a society like that, I think that's where the harm comes in, the worse it is.
People are going to reject marriage, and that means more, you know, fewer kids are being born.
Also, more kids are being born in a context where they don't have that stable family structure.
So the harm definitely comes.
It may not be this immediate connect the dots thing, but we can already see that.
So you think by adding gay couples to the definition of what a marriage is, by defining it in that way, it's two people that bond each other, somehow another, that harms people that have successful marriages that are nuclear family marriages like you enjoy.
Because you know that most of these places that they do change them with culture.
Legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship, historically, in some jurisdictions, specifically a union between a man and a woman, and in quotes, a happy marriage, a combination or a mixture of two or more elements.
So I feel like in a weird way, we're agreeing because I'm saying that if we expand marriage to include gay couples, we have made marriage into something effectively meaningless and silly.
But I don't think gay people getting married changes that.
I think if gay people didn't get married, you'd still have a bunch of people that think that marriage is silly and that marriage is just a legal bond and that it's not necessary and you can have a family without marriage and there's a lot of people that do it.
You'd have fewer, but the bigger point is that as a culture, we would not have affirmed and validated that view that marriage is silly and pointless.
But now we have as a country, the Supreme Court validated it.
And that's a problem because I think that marriage is so important to a functioning human civilization, which is why there's never been a civilization without it.
And so this is another one of those experiments that we're trying out.
But it's dependent upon people agreeing to stay married.
That's what it's dependent upon.
And there's always that escape clause and people pull that shoot all the time.
I don't think gay people being married has any effect on whether or not straight people stay together or whether or not stray people get married or whether or not straight people appreciate marriage.
They're staying married because there's a benefit to it.
It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not gay people are also married.
I don't think that affects them in the slightest.
I don't think my marriage is affected at all by my friend getting divorced.
I think it has any effect on me.
If I decide to stay married and my wife decides to stay married to me, that's our own decision.
And we do it based on our own commitment to being together, to having a family, to raising a family.
Two other people getting married or not getting married or Elizabeth Taylor getting married 10 times means nothing.
I believe in sexual immorality is that the sexual act properly ordered belongs within the marital bond, which should be reserved for a man and a woman, which also means that it's sexually immoral to have sex before marriage.
All these things happen.
I'm aware of that.
But I do believe that it's immoral.
We could talk about that part of the conversation.
But then there's also just the definitional side of it, which is what we've been talking about up till now.
And I can explain or attempt to why the definition of marriage is important.
And I can do that without saying, well, here's the Bible verse and quoting the Bible.
But obviously, there has to be some religious reason why you think it's immoral for people to have gay sex, for people to have sex with each other, even if they're married.
Because if you think that extramarital relationships are immoral, sexual relations are immoral.
What about gay people that preserve their virginity until they're married?
There's people that are just gay.
They know they're gay.
They've been gay forever.
I have friends that are gay.
They've always been gay.
I have friends that are gay that are really damaged because they have to hide it.
And they're closeted.
Some of them in the entertainment industry.
Some of them that are like alcoholics because of it.
And they're all fucked up because they have this secret.
And they are gay.
And it's not something that was forced upon them.
It's not something that was asked of them or something they were manipulated into being.
They're just gay.
And if those gay people find other gay people and they fall in love and they decide to get married, I don't see how that affects anyone other than someone that's not gay who has this idea that they shouldn't be that way.
But they're just gay.
You're not going to fix that.
And by telling them to ignore that aspect of who they are as a human being and to deny that that's always been a part of human history, if you go back through like ancient stories, there's been men who've been in love with men.
But the question is, when you have this happening on a massive societal scale and you have a society that has embraced this and has officially sort of embraced the idea that marriage is not permanent, so anyone would just get divorced for whatever reason.
Marriage is not procreative.
So it doesn't matter, man, woman just get married.
That's where the effect comes in.
And yeah, as someone who's already been married, as an adult, you might not feel it as much, but it certainly will.
You said earlier that it's not going to stop other people from getting married.
I think it does.
I think it will stop it.
I think it is right now.
Marriage rates are declining at a historic rate right now.
But I don't think it's a coincidence that that's happened and that this process has been sped up after the gay marriage Supreme Court decision and also alongside divorce being rampant.
I think people are, they might not articulate it exactly like this.
I mean, some of them probably would, but people are looking at marriage, and they're seeing the way that it's treated now in society, and they're saying, it's just, I don't need it.
If all it is is a piece of paperwork saying, I love this person, what the hell do I need that for?
Like, why do I need, you know, but isn't their own personal decision to make?
Like, if we believe and value personal freedom, the freedom to choose your ideology, the freedom to live your life how you like to, the freedom to choose your occupation, freedom to choose what education or discipline you pursue.
Shouldn't we encourage the freedom to leave a relationship that's toxic?
Like, if someone is married and they're married to someone and they don't grow together and they grow apart from each other and they resent each other and hate each other, why should they stay together?
Just because they said it?
I mean, isn't that ridiculous to assume that people are not going to change?
You're talking about people that get married for 10, 15, 20 years.
You're not the same person you were 20 years ago.
I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago.
If you're lucky, you marry someone and you grow together and your bond strengthens over time.
But that doesn't always work.
That's just part of being a human.
Just because we have this institution that we've developed that we think that, oh, it should, until death to us part.
Well, that's it.
You said it forever.
Now you're going to be miserable because in the eyes of God, you have to be together forever and ever and ever.
Yeah, but it's an epidemic of people not taking the marriage vows seriously, of the marriage vows not really meaning anything.
Because most people still, when they get married, even if they're not religious, most people still stand on an altar and the death do you apart and they say all that.
And then so then now we're saying, well, that's it.
Would you say that there is an important difference between a couple that can create a child, a couple who's, you know, in the marital act, it can create a person versus a couple that fundamentally could never create a person.
I mean, the type of relationship or the type of coupling that by its nature can create people versus the type of coupling that by its nature never can.
If you had a conversation with a gay man and you were going to tell them what you thought morally was correct to do, would you tell them to not be gay?
What if you have gay people that are also, they meet other gay people, they love each other, they want to have sex, they should avoid that because of what?
Because it's written somewhere?
Because at one point in time, someone believed that God told them that they shouldn't have sex with other men?
It's always existed even with healthy people, with healthy, balanced, happy people that are in love with other healthy, balanced, happy people that happen to be gay.
Right, but there's always been a certain percentage of the population that's gay.
So what would those people do?
What would you have them do?
This is where the rubber meets the robe when it comes to Christian ideology and forcing or encouraging those belief systems on other people that don't agree with that.
If you want to live the Christian lifestyle and you want to be an obedient Christian, then sex happens within the confines of the marriage and marriage between a man and a woman.
But do you think that that comes from God or do you think that comes from men?
Do you think that that's human beings that have developed these ideologies that they would like people to follow, these behavior patterns that they'd like people to follow?
Or do you think it really comes from God?
And if it really does come from God, why would God make people gay in the first place?
So every person that's gay was created by God, of course.
Where exactly does that proclivity come from?
Like I said, I don't know exactly.
To say that someone's born gay, I have issues with that go beyond theology because now you're talking about, you know, if you're born with a sexual, with any sexual proclivity, then that means that we're talking about like gay infants and so on.
And I think I gave the reason, which is that marriage serves a certain purpose for society.
It is a certain thing definitionally.
And it is, as you even agreed, the union between a man and a woman in principle is different from the union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
And that difference comes down to its capacity, its procreative capacity or lack thereof.
So we're in agreement that there's a difference there.
I would say that it's an important distinction.
And so it makes sense for society to have a certain name for this procreative union.
Because the union between a man and a woman, even if they choose not to have kids, it is still a fundamentally procreative union, apart from choices they make or if someone has a condition where they're not able to conceive.
Even in those cases, I think we're still called to a kind of parental service, but maybe in a different form.
You mentioned before charity work or something like that.
People that can't have kids, that could be a form of paternal or maternal service.
I think that most people are called to have kids and raise families that way, but not everybody.
But I think everyone is called to a life of paternal or maternal service.
Yeah, there are even conservatives now who will say, well, let's just get government out of marriage completely.
Just the whole thing.
Just get it out.
I can understand that view, especially at this point, just saying, you know, it's caused more problems than it's worth and all that kind of stuff.
But I don't agree with it because I think that there was a reason why the government recognized marriage in the past because it has this really significant consequential capacity.
And society has a vested interest in your marriage if it has the potential to be procreative because you're creating people, you know, and the rest of us are going to have to deal with those people that you create.
So I think ideally that's what I would still like to see.
I still think that society and the government should recognize that.
I think we should it's not going to happen, but if it were up to me, I would go back to what it was six, seven years ago, you know, where marriage is definitionally this one thing, and that's it.
But that is kind of what it's about if we're talking about laws or If we're talking about definitions, we're talking about how society accepts and whether or not you get the insurance benefits and the tax benefits of a heterosexual couple, whether you can visit your spouse when they're in the hospital.
Well, if you are with someone and you love them, I mean, like you've been saying this whole time, it seems almost silly that you need to have paperwork to affirm that.
Like, no one was ever suggesting a law that would say you're only allowed to love people in marriage.
If you're not married, you're not allowed to love people.
No one's suggesting that.
I just don't, with this current idea of marriage, I don't even see the point of it if that's all it is.
I still go back to why would you even need, I know the purpose of marriage and why society had an interest in it if it's fundamentally procreative.
But if it's not, and we're just getting rid of that, then all it is is paperwork to say, I love someone, and not even permanently, because I might not love them tomorrow.
It's like you turn into sort of a charade, which is what many people think marriage is, essentially.
And that's kind of what I'm worried about, you know?
Because one way or another, I don't know, you fast forward 20 or 30 years and marriage rates have continued their decline, and maybe 30 years from now, there's almost no marriage at all.
What does society look like?
I don't know exactly, but I don't think it looks better.
Right, but it has no objective or a real significant meaning outside of like other than the ones we discussed about taxes and being able to visit your spouse and affirming your love together in what you feel like is a permanent way.
You're making a bond.
You're making a pact with this other person that you love.
But what bothers people is that religious ideology will be imposed upon them in that sense.
And that the only reason why people would oppose it in a different way than they were opposing heterosexual people that have no intention of having children is because they have an opposition to homosexuality based on religious beliefs, which they feel like should be excluded.
Definition of marriage isn't, I don't think it's not, it's not merely that or not only that anyway.
And one of the ways that I know that is that marriage has existed as an institution in societies all across the country and throughout history and regardless of what religion was predominant in those societies.
So I don't think Christians just invented this idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Because if they did, then you wouldn't find it anywhere else.
I mean, I'm not aware of any historical precedent going back in history to a culture that would affirm two men as being married in the same sense that a man and woman are married.
I think this conversation that we're having, one of the more important things of being able to have conversations like this is that people that do have differing perspectives can have a civil conversation on why they believe what they believe.
This is so sadly uncommon in our culture.
And there's going to be people out there that agree with you that are listening to this that are like, I am on Matt Walsh's side.
And there's going to be people that see my point.
But that's part of being a person.
Part of being a human being that exists in 2022 is there's a lot of different ways to live your life and a lot of different ways to see the world.
And whether or not you and I ever come to an agreement about this, it's not really that important.
Well, what's important is that you get a chance to discuss it.
And that is what scares the shit out of me about our culture today, that these kind of conversations are not encouraged.
They're discouraged.
And that someone would say, oh, you're platforming a bigot to have this conversation.
You're putting those ideas out there.
I think that's one of the things that's led us into this fucking mess we're in right now.
One of the reasons that we can have a civil conversation is that we still, even though we differ widely on really important issues, there's a commonality.
We both agree in civil discourse and be able to express yourself articulately and express your thoughts, allowing that person to express their thoughts.
Yeah, but then one of the problems is if I'm sitting across the table from someone who doesn't even believe any of those things, then we might be able to refrain from shouting at each other, but to have any kind of productive conversation at all is really impossible because there's just no shared framework at all.
Maybe, but at least people, like in the movie, in What is a Woman, you at least let those people explain themselves and you made it clear where you stand and people get a chance to assess these ideas for their merits by themselves.
Which is that's what I think is important about a documentary like yours, not just exposing these horrific practices of doing these things to children before they can even have any idea what the fuck the consequences are, but also that you let people know that the ideological bubble that you're living in is not the only way to see the world.
And there's a lot of people out there that disagree.
And they have opinions, and a lot of them are very intelligent as well.
We disagree about a lot, but I get your perspective.
And I think your movie is very important.
It is eye-opening.
I think a lot of parents should watch it.
A lot of people that are in that liberal ideological bubble, I would encourage them to watch it and see what they're up against.
Because I don't think it's everything they think that it is.
I don't think it's what you're getting described to you by Jon Stewart and John Oliver and any of these left-wing talking heads that are on these media platforms that seem universally to be accepting these ideas wholesale.