Ep. 375 - Another School Board Abolishes Privacy In The Girls Locker Room
Today we'll take a look at the reaction of various gay rights groups to Chick fil A's surrender. It proves again why surrender never pays off. Also, a school board in Illinois voted to allow boys in the girl's locker room. A very upsetting video of one girl at the school reacting to the vote should put the debate to rest. And we'll take a look at the creepiest Sprite ad you've ever seen. Date: 11-20-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
We talked yesterday about Chick-fil-A's cave to the LGBT rage mob, and I pointed out, as many others pointed out as well, that the cave, on top of being cowardly and shameful, is also pointless and counterproductive.
It's not going to accomplish anything from a pragmatic or business perspective because
it only has the potential to alienate their current base of customers and it's not going
to appease their critics or create new customers.
So there's really nothing in it for them.
And now that certain gay groups have offered their official reactions over the last couple
of days to this news about Chick-fil-A's surrender to them, I think my point has been totally
confirmed.
through a few of these here.
There's definitely a lesson in this for all of us that we can all learn.
referenced this yesterday but here's the actual statement from GLAAD, Gay and
Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. In addition to refraining from financially
supporting anti-LGBTQ organizations, Chick-fil-A still lacks policies to
ensure safe workplaces for LGBTQ employees and should unequivocally speak
out against the LGBTQ reputation that their brand represents. So translation
there, number one, they want Chick-fil-A to come out and it's not enough to just
stop donating to quote anti-LGBTQ organizations which by the way that's
the Salvation Army, a group that helps the poor, provides toys for kids around
Christmas time.
That's anti-gay in the minds of the people over at GLAAD.
But they need, on top of that, they need Chick-fil-A to come out and
actually explicitly denounce Christian teaching on gay marriage.
Denounce their founders and their CEO's position on it.
That's what they need.
And then in terms of policies to ensure a safe workplace for
LGBTQ employees, that of course is just nonsense.
There's no indication, no hint, no evidence at all that Chick-fil-A has discriminated against gay employees or
provided an unsafe environment for gay employees.
And that's what's been the absurdity all along with this, is that Chick-fil-A hires and employs gay people.
They don't discriminate there.
They serve gay people.
There's never been any discrimination at all.
But GLAAD is, so what they're doing here is they're not only giving additional demands, but they're also slandering and smearing Chick-fil-A on top of it.
That's their way of saying thank you, is to smear them.
And then the Human Rights Coalition says, while this is an important step for Chick-fil-A, the company still does not have workplace protections and policies that are fully inclusive of LGBTQ people.
This is according to Beck Bailey of the HRC Foundation.
We look forward to the day when Chick-fil-A's commitment to welcoming all is reflected in their workplace policies and practices by including explicit sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination protections.
Meanwhile, you've got the website LGBTQ Nation with the headline, Remember, Chick-fil-A isn't LGBTQ friendly yet.
And the website The Advocate says, Chick-fil-A still isn't LGBTQ friendly, despite pledge on donations.
Okay, and this is just a handful of examples, but this shows you, this is the response, okay.
So, you've got this response from the left and from the gay groups attacking Chick-fil-A, and now you've got conservatives and Christians criticizing Chick-fil-A, so they've just pissed everybody off.
And the latest ISILs are already sort of flip-flopping, and the president of Chick-fil-A came out and said, well, we still haven't totally made up our mind.
Actually, maybe we'll still donate to Salvation Army.
We'll see.
I'm paraphrasing slightly.
So now they're scrambling.
And the thing is, If they backtrack and say, no, never mind, we're still going to donate.
It's too late.
This was such a horrendous mistake.
This is the classic unforced error.
Everything was going fine for Chick-fil-A.
Everything was going swimmingly.
It was splendid over at Chick-fil-A.
They were growing.
They were serving chicken.
Most people loved them.
Then you got this small group of fringe people that were complaining about them.
But in fact, it was kind of nice having them because those people, it was just more publicity and it kept Chick-fil-A in the headlines and galvanized support behind Chick-fil-A.
Chick-fil-A really had The ideal situation for a restaurant chain, really, when you think about it.
Because great product, great service, great reputation as far as that goes, lots of support, growing.
And, but then also having that little core of people always attacking them is kind of good because like I said, it galvanizes support, it creates headlines.
That's what they had.
Now it's just, it's all, it's all ruined.
And what you have to understand, what we have to understand is how the left operates in the culture war.
We're seeing it here.
They are like Sherman's march to the sea in the Civil War, burn everything down, make sure every house is destroyed, every field is smoldering.
The enemy is the enemy.
So give them no quarter, no respite.
Do not accept surrender, right?
Or at least unconditional surrender.
And as always, you contrast that with the other side.
You contrast that with the opposition.
And the strategy for years, on the other side, has been, well, maybe if we show how reasonable we are, maybe, you know, maybe they'll go easy on us then.
Maybe if we concede a little ground here, and a little ground over there, and okay, a little more ground here, and a little more ground there, and maybe now they're happy.
Okay, they're not happy, so just a little bit more.
We'll just back up a little bit more, a little bit more, a little bit more, until you've just backed up and they've pushed you over the cliff into the sea.
It's completely pathetic.
At a certain point, I don't know, at a certain point you think everyone's going to learn their lesson and understand how this works.
And the thing for Chick-fil-A is, and this is really the truth, it honestly does not matter what they do.
They could even do the donation thing, no more donations.
They could come out with a statement.
Condemning Christians and disavowing, just complete and total surrender.
They could do that, and that still wouldn't be enough.
I guarantee you.
Because the gay lobby and the left, they're not ever going to forget or forgive because of what happened in the past.
Think about the left going and tearing down statues of people that lived 200 years ago or 500 years ago.
Centuries could pass, and they're still not going to forgive you.
It could be 500 years in the future, okay?
It could be 500 years in the future, okay?
We could be looking at like the year 2500, and Chick-fil-A has long since disavowed and everything,
and they still would be persona non grata as far as the left is concerned.
Speaking of shameful compromises, I've got a doozy of one to talk about next.
But before we do that, I want to tell you about Paint Your Life.
Paint Your Life a picture, one of my favorite pictures of the kids at the lake last summer when we were on vacation.
And they sent me back this beautiful watercolor rendition of it.
My wife and I love it.
Displayed now proudly in our living room.
And there's something about the painting, as opposed to, you know, the photograph.
Photograph is great, but the painting, it really brings something out of it, really turns The picture into a moment, you know, from a moment that was captured into a work of art.
And that's what I love about it.
If you want to give a truly meaningful gift come the holidays, either a gift to someone else or to yourself and to your own family, you've got to try paintyourlife.com.
Have an original painting of yourself, your children, family, special place, cherish pet.
Done for you at a price you can afford from paintyourlife.com.
And I want to say prices are great.
Also, the turnaround time is great.
I was really impressed with that.
I thought, you know, you send in the picture and I thought like six months later they'll send you in a painting.
No, no.
They sent it back very quickly, but not like it's rushed.
It's beautifully done.
So if you look at it, you would think they spent six months doing it.
This is a true painting done by hand by a world-class artist created from a favorite photo.
Makes the perfect holiday gift.
It's also great for birthdays, anniversaries, weddings.
And right now as a limited time offer, get 30% off your painting.
That's right, 30% off.
It's a huge discount, free shipping.
To get this special offer, text Matt to 64000.
That's Matt, M-A-T-T, to 64000.
Text M-A-T-T to 64000.
Okay, now... I want to play something for you, and this... This is not hyperbole, I'm not being dramatic.
The video that I want to play is very upsetting, it's infuriating.
And let me give you the setup first.
Thanks, as always, to LifeSite News for their great work on this and for bringing it to my attention.
Let me read a little bit, actually, from LifeSite News, their article on this.
It says, provoking concern among both parents and students, an Illinois school district voted last week to allow gender-confused students to choose which restrooms and locker rooms reflect their gender identity.
The Board of District 211 voted 5-2 last Thursday evening to adopt a new policy for Palantine High School, according to the Daily Herald.
It declares that students shall be treated and supported in a manner consistent with their gender identity, which shall include students having access to restrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their gender identity.
The vote came at a meeting attended by nearly 500 community members after the school board rejected a proposal to let the community vote on the question in a district-wide referendum.
Many of the attendees vehemently disapproved of the plan, with one video in particular starkly contrasting the benefit to trans students with the fallout for the majority.
Okay, now the video referenced.
What you're going to see here are two reactions to this insane vote by the psychos over at this school board.
The first is a boy gloating that now he gets to change in the girls' locker room.
And the second is a girl, a real actual biological girl, giving an honest reaction to what has transpired.
And you could tell that she is hurt.
She's scared.
She feels betrayed.
She's got tears in her eyes.
I do not know how any decent person could watch the video I'm going to play for you and not feel sympathy for the girl.
Really, you'll see the boy and then the girl.
I don't know how you could possibly watch this and feel more sympathy for the boy than for the girl.
But tell me what you think.
Give this a watch.
I'm really hoping they vote for it.
It's definitely going to be a step forward in progress.
I'm really excited if they vote for it.
A bit nervous, though, as always.
You never know.
But it's definitely a first step forward in many more steps.
It's a great policy.
Unfortunately, it's not everything we want, such as talking about even the small things like changing the name on your student ID, which you're required to wear at all times.
So I'm really hoping that the district makes the right decision here and votes it.
Yeah, it passed.
It passed.
And how does that make you feel?
Oh, I'm ecstatic.
I'm just... I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I feel uncomfortable that my privacy is being invaded as I am a swimmer.
I do change multiple times naked in front of the other students in the locker room.
I understand that the board has an obligation to all students, but I was hoping that they would go about this in a different way that would also accommodate students such as myself.
Okay, first of all, I dare anyone to step up and explain why that girl with tears in her eyes, terrified that she has to change in front of a boy.
And you heard her explain, you know, she's in swimming, so she's using the locker room, she's getting completely changed, and I dare someone to explain why she's a bigot.
Why she's a bigot for wanting privacy.
Please someone, send me an email, explain it to me, spell it all out, because I want to hear it.
Now second, for the sane among us, what you see here is the two competing claims.
Very Clearly illustrated.
We see the two sides represented.
On one side, you have a biological boy, dressed up like a girl, sort of, who claims he has a right to change with girls.
On the other side, you have a biological girl who claims she has a right to privacy and to be protected when she's in a vulnerable and exposed state at school.
Okay, now let's break this down.
Let's say that we say to the boy, I mean, let's pretend that we're all sane and reasonable.
And so, we say to the boy, like we should say, you're out of luck, sorry.
You're not getting what you want.
You're just not getting it.
That's it.
Now, go change in a boy's locker room.
That's where you belong.
Let's say that we said that.
What's the downside?
I mean, what is the worst case scenario?
What's the worst case consequence or something like that?
The downside for him is that now he has to change with boys because he is one.
And he's being treated like every other boy.
Now, that might make him uncomfortable, but it's a discomfort born from his own confusion.
Okay, now, what's the downside on the other side?
What's the downside to telling the girl she's out of luck?
Sorry, we don't care.
You have to get naked around a boy.
What's the downside?
Well, she's now being deprived of privacy.
She has to deal with the fear and worry of having boys in the locker room with her.
Her safety is in jeopardy.
Her personal space and privacy is obliterated.
I just don't see how any sane person could look at this situation, the two competing claims, and decide that the downside for the boy is somehow worse, somehow more severe, and in fact is so terrible that it overrides the claims of the girl.
That's just absolute madness.
But hang on a second, because this isn't just one boy versus one girl.
This is one boy, or maybe a few, at most, in a whole school, Versus all of the girls.
So, what we're saying, or what the school board is saying, rather, is that the comfort of these couple of boys outweighs the privacy of every girl in the school.
So, this bears repeating.
The claim here is that the comfort of a few boys outweighs the privacy concerns of every single girl in that school.
That is just, look, If you're on board with this, if you're in agreement with the school board, there are only two explanations as far as I can tell.
Either you're insane or you're evil.
Or you are very, very, very stupid and you have allowed yourself to be duped by the leftist
talking points on this.
So I'll allow for that third possibility.
But there really isn't.
There is not a scenario, there just isn't, where a morally decent, sane, intelligent
person could say that, oh yeah, I think that boy has a right to change in the girls' locker
There just isn't.
And that's a broad brush stroke, and I'm using it.
That's a broad, big, huge paintbrush, and I'm painting the whole side that way.
What I'm saying is, of all the people who are on this boy's side saying he should change it, not a single one of those people are intelligent, morally decent, and sane.
Not a single one.
Let me, and there are some issues like that.
And that's why, let me head something off of the past here.
I always hear this whenever I talk about this issue, when I speak in such strong terms about it, I always hear someone say, look man, I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's a complex issue.
It's very complicated.
And this is where the stupid people come in.
This is the stupid person response.
Because it's not complicated.
Okay?
And I'm at the point now where I'm a lot more annoyed by the, it's complicated people, than I am by the people who would just come flat out and defend putting boys in the girls' locker room.
The ones who try to make it, it's nuanced, it's complicated.
Maybe what annoys me is that they're so stupid, but they're trying to look intelligent.
They're trying to come up with the, you know, sort of rise above it.
I'm not on either side, you know.
I see both, and I see the nuances, and you just don't see it.
So they're trying to take the intellectual high ground, even though they are so enormously stupid.
This is not a complicated issue.
There are complicated things.
Quantum physics is complicated.
When it comes to moral issues, an issue like capital punishment is, I would say, complicated.
You know a complicated issue.
Here's how you know a moral issue is complicated.
If there are intelligent and reasonable arguments on both sides.
If you've got people on both extreme ends of this discussion making intelligent and reasonable points.
And then in between, on the spectrum bridging that gap, there are a bunch of intelligent and reasonable points, too.
Okay, that's how you know you've got a complicated issue on your hands.
And something like capital punishment, I would say, yeah, I've heard really intelligent and reasonable points on both sides of it, and all the way in between.
This is not one of those.
There aren't any intelligent or reasonable points on the pro-letting-boys-into-the-girls-locker-room side.
There just aren't.
There are none.
This is so simple.
There's nothing complicated about it at all.
A boy says he wants to change in a girl's locker room.
No, you can't.
That's it.
That's it.
That's all you have to say.
Now, if you want to talk about it on an emotional level as well, don't you feel sorry for these boys that are confused?
I'm the first one to say that normally when we talk about the gender thing and we talk about gender confused people, I'll be the first to say that Yeah, I think we feel compassion for people who have this confusion.
That doesn't mean that we compromise with them.
That doesn't mean that we give up on reality.
That certainly doesn't mean that we succumb to their delusion or we support them in their delusion.
But yeah, we can have compassion.
Usually.
But here's my thing.
The moment you demand, as a man or a boy, to have access to a girl's locker room, And the moment that you arrogantly, narcissistically, cruelly say that their concerns don't matter, you know, you could look at that girl... You have people crying because they don't want you in there because they feel uncomfortable.
And you're looking at them and saying, screw you, I don't care.
See, the moment you do that, I don't feel sorry for you anymore.
Sorry, I have no more compassion for you.
I think you're just a bully and a jerk.
And I think what you're doing, and I hold you also responsible.
Why wouldn't I?
I mean, you're responsible.
You should be a decent person.
Putting the confusion aside, I understand that part of it, but you're looking at these girls, you see how uncomfortable, how about just worrying about them a little bit instead of yourself?
How about not putting yourself above everybody?
One other point I want to make here, defenders of this madness We'll often say, oh come on, do you really think a boy is going to pretend to be transgender so that he can watch girls change in a locker room?
Do you think that's really going to happen?
Now, that's actually irrelevant.
The point here is the privacy rights of the girl.
The exact internal motivation of the boy who invades the privacy of the girl is basically irrelevant.
It doesn't actually matter.
But, since we're on the subject, Do I think that a boy would potentially pretend to be transgender so that he could watch girls change the locker room?
Yes, I do.
It's certainly, it's at least possible, if you're creating a scenario where a biological boy has every right to go into the girls' locker room, as long as he's transgender, but then also, there's no way to, we just have to take his word for it that he's transgender?
It's not like there's any tests that can be done.
There's nothing, it's just, we gotta take his word for it.
He says he identifies as a girl, I mean, and it doesn't matter.
If he came to school yesterday as a boy, and he was a boy, and then a day later, 12 hours later, 24 hours later, he's saying he's a girl, you have to just go, you can't, you have to take his word for it.
So, do I think it's possible that a boy who is not gender confused would exploit a scenario, a situation such as that?
Yes, it's possible.
In fact, you can't deny that it's possible.
You have to agree with me that it is at least possible, right?
You can't say that it's impossible.
Is it impossible that a biological, non-gender confused boy would exploit that?
No, it's not impossible.
It is possible, right?
We have to agree on that.
It's at least possible.
We could debate how possible or how likely it is.
What's the degree of likelihood?
But forget about that.
It is possible.
So here's my point.
We're creating a scenario where it's at least possible a boy could exploit it to gain access to the girl's locker room.
Everyone agrees it's possible.
What you're saying, if you agree, if you're on board with this, what you're saying is, yeah, it's possible, but it's a risk worth taking.
So I just want you to say that out loud.
That's all.
I just want you to say, I want, because that's your position.
That is your position, even if you're not saying it out loud.
So I'm just, that is your position.
Just say it out loud so that you can hear yourself saying it.
I want you to say, yes, I support a policy, which it would be possible for a boy to exploit in order to invade the privacy of girls and watch them change.
But that's a risk I'm willing to take.
Just say that out loud.
See how it feels when you say it out loud.
In fact, maybe look in the mirror while you say it.
So you can see what kind of person you are, who would take a position like that.
In fact, for me, put everything else to the side.
Even though this isn't even the main point, because like I said, the motivations of the boys, that's not even the main point or even all that relevant, but this is enough right here.
This should, this point right here should be enough.
That is not a risk that I'm willing to take.
Or maybe I should phrase it another way.
That is not a risk that I think girls should be forced to take, because I'm not taking the risk.
You're not taking it.
It's the girls in the school, and it's our daughters generally in schools across the country.
We're forcing them to take a risk.
And no, I don't think they should be forced to take it.
I don't.
And if you think they should, then yeah, look in the mirror and say that out loud.
And see if you can really be proud of yourself holding a position like that.
All right, before we move on, you know, if you haven't been listening to Andrew Klavan's fantasy podcast, Another Kingdom, first of all, then what are you doing with your life if you haven't been?
But you need to go to dailywire.com, subscribe right now to catch up because on Monday, November 25th at 7 p.m.
Eastern, 4 p.m.
Pacific, Andrew and Michael Knowles will be sitting down together to discuss The final season.
Also take subscriber questions live from the fans.
This live event will be free for everyone to watch on Facebook and YouTube, but only subscribers will be able to ask the questions at dailywire.com.
And also, by the way, subscribers exclusively can watch the entirety of the series.
You can listen free to the newest seasons on Apple Podcasts.
Go check it out now and don't miss another Kingdom Live discussion happening Monday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, 4 p.m.
Pacific.
All right.
Uh, what else?
Well, in a, in a similar vein to the last topic, Sprite has a new ad out.
We'll cover this quickly.
I've been, I've had this on, on the docket, uh, to talk about for a few days now.
So Sprite, uh, they have a new, a new ad out.
Um, it's a Sprite ad that, that makes no mention of Sprite, uh, which has been the thing now in advertisements for years.
Of course, I'm sure you've noticed.
To have ads that just don't have anything to do with the product at all.
Not only does it not mention Sprite, but it doesn't even feature anyone drinking a Sprite, I think, from what I noticed.
Maybe I missed the shot, but I didn't even see someone drink a Sprite in the whole commercial.
Anyway, that's not really the point.
The point is that this ad is creepy as hell.
If you haven't seen it, give it a look.
["When You Walk Through A Storm"]
When you walk through a storm, hold your head up high
Hold your head up high And don't be afraid
and don't be afraid of the dark.
Of the dark At the end of a storm
At the end of a storm, When you walk through a storm
There's a golden sky And a sweet silver song of love
Walk on through the rain Walk on, walk on
With hope in your heart And you'll never, ever walk alone
Alone Alone
Okay.
Thank you.
First of all, can we just go back quickly and freeze frame it at 1.19?
I want you to look at minute 1.19 right here.
This is where the cross dressing guy heads to the gay pride parade with his boyfriend and the dad is looking on.
And I guess the dad is supposed to seem proud or whatever, but, but look at his expression.
I think they needed to reshoot that one because that's not, that's more of a like, dammit, I screwed this one up, didn't I?
Look, isn't it?
That's not, I don't really see the pride.
It's like a worried, depressed look.
I just, I think that they, I don't know, they probably need to go back and do that one over.
You can kind of tell that he's thinking, the dad's sort of thinking, well, this really didn't work out how I intended.
But anyway, what you're seeing here is, again, the promotion and propagation of confusion, mental disorder, child abuse.
And it's being promoted and propagated by a powerful force in our society.
Now, I said this on Twitter a few days ago, and there were leftists mocking me for it.
A Daily Kos writer among them mocked me for calling Sprite a powerful force in our society.
Now, don't you love it how these people, they drop their evil corporation shtick as soon as the corporation starts singing their ideological tune?
Now, all of a sudden, the idea that a corporation is a powerful force is funny?
What are you talking about, powerful forces?
I mean, you spend all day ranting about billionaires and millionaires, and the moment someone responds, well, this corporation, what they're doing is wrong, well, what do you care about corporations?
It doesn't matter!
Now, Sprite is owned by the Coca-Cola Company, which is a multinational corporation whose largest shareholder is Berkshire Hathaway.
So yes, powerful force, very powerful, and it is intent on promoting this.
We should ask why.
And we should ask what?
What is being promoted here?
Go back and look at the 17 marks, 17 seconds.
What you're seeing there is called breast binding.
This is the practice of flattening a woman's breasts to make her appear masculine.
Of course, this is highly damaging physically to a woman.
Damage to the skin, to the muscle, to the bone structure, problems breathing, infections, bacteria buildup.
All of these and more are side effects.
Obvious, inevitable side effects of trying to crush a woman's breasts to make her look like a boy.
Now, why would a woman or a girl consent to such treatment?
Well, if she hates her female body and wishes that it wasn't female.
And that's when she might want to damage it in this way.
This is a form of self-mutilation.
This is body dysmorphia.
This is what people with anorexia have, where they look at themselves and they're obviously not overweight, but they feel like they're overweight.
They look in the mirror and they see an overweight person.
They don't like their bodies, and so they damage themselves physically.
And again, it's similar to what people who self-mutilate suffer from.
Damaging the body on purpose.
Now, imagine a Sprite ad with inspirational music, slickly shot and edited, showing someone heroically cutting themselves or purging after a food binge.
Imagine a campaign to accept anorexia.
To stop the stigma against anorexic.
Not to stop the stigma against anorexic people.
Not to have us accept anorexic people.
That's different.
Yes, we should accept people who suffer from this disorder.
We should accept them.
We should be compassionate towards them.
We should be sympathetic.
We should want to help them.
So a campaign like that would be fine.
I'm saying, imagine a campaign that says anorexia itself is normal and fine and we should accept it.
And celebrate it.
We would all be horrified by that.
We'd condemn whatever corporation produced that ad.
We'd call them evil.
We'd accuse them of trying to do great harm to children.
How is this different?
It isn't.
The only difference is that the delusion of the girl who chest spines is politically acceptable, ideologically acceptable, whereas the delusion of the cutter or the bulimic is not.
That's the only difference.
In all of these cases, though, you have people damaging themselves out of self-loathing, out of a rejection of their body, a rejection of themselves.
All of this stuff, these days, and usually what you get from corporations and from marketing campaigns, Especially when things are geared towards women, it's all about accepting your body, accepting yourself for who you are, you're beautiful, and all of that.
Well, this runs directly counter to that.
Because this, what you're seeing depicted in the commercial, would be a girl, a female, who does not accept her body.
And rejects it.
So rather than saying, no, accept who you are, The ad is saying, yeah, well, no, go ahead and that's, yeah, go ahead and do what you have to destroy yourself.
It's again, horrific.
All right, let's move on to emails.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
This is, hang on a second.
This is from Dan says, dear Matt, did you happen to see or hear about the latest episode on the blacklist?
On NBC, I've watched On and Off for a few years, but the latest episode was my last.
The basic plotline of the episode was that a woman was kidnapping conservative men and impregnating them with what turns out is her own rapist babies.
One man actually gave birth to the baby.
In the end, the conservative governor that apparently signed a late-term abortion bill in his own state was forced to travel to New York for a late-term abortion of his own baby.
I could not believe the lengths this episode went to to propagandize abortion.
It really was hard to get through, and of course, in the end, Brave NBC failed to show the baby being ripped apart and its head crushed, which would have been the only realistic part of the entire episode.
Just thought I'd let you know about this ridiculous show, and thank you for speaking up about abortion and faith issues.
I have so many questions.
I mean, how did she impregnate a man?
In what way did he give birth?
I probably don't want to know the answer to these questions.
This is what they put on NBC at 8 o'clock in the evening or whenever Blacklist airs.
Yeah, this is why... I mean, network shows in general are mostly just trash.
I mean, even putting aside the political propaganda, And the morally objectionable content, which there's a lot of that, but even putting that aside, my first problem with a show like The Blacklist that I watched a few episodes years ago, I can't believe it's still on TV, just a bad show.
I don't know how these networks are still getting away with putting bad television on there.
We live in the golden era of television.
You've got You've got HBO and Netflix and Amazon and some cable and premium channels just putting out beautiful shows, masterpieces, and yet the networks like NBC and CBS are still producing garbage.
They're producing stuff that would have seemed bad in 1996.
that would have seemed bad in 1996.
Why do people watch it?
You do know that Netflix exists, right?
I'm not saying everything Netflix puts out is great, but even the worst show on Netflix, quality-wise, is a hundred times better than the best show on NBC.
Anyway, that's not really the point.
The point is the ideological... And this is why, yet another reason not to watch these network shows.
And I think you're right to just stop watching it.
Why would you want to put yourself through that?
This reminds me of what was that episode?
I was a show on a show called Scandal a few years ago.
I don't know if that was that an NBC maybe I think it was ABC ABC show and they had their Christmas episode a few years ago featured a woman getting an abortion.
While the song Silent Night played in the background.
So they're not trying to hide it.
They're just putting it right out there for you.
And what they're saying to you as the viewer, if you're a conservative, if you're pro-life, what they're saying is, you are scum, we hate you, we don't want you watching.
That's the message.
This sounds like this Blacklist episode.
That's really the message to the viewer, saying, if you're not a radical pro-abortion leftist, we hate you, despise you, don't want you to watch.
And so, yes, I think we should respond to that and say, okay, if you don't want us to watch, we won't.
This isn't even boycotting, this is just, you clearly don't want ratings from us and so we will oblige.
You don't want us to watch, we won't.
So I think you're responding the right way to that.
This is from Phil, says, Hey Matt, a friend from high school who used to be conservative is now a staunch liberal, hates everything Trump says and does, actually hosted a drag queen story hour at the local library, supports childhood transgenderism, etc.
He's been posting lately about how non-affirming Christians are hurting the LGBTQ community, specifically those who identify as transgender, says that any gospel interpretation that confronts it as sin or makes them feel guilty about their choices is wrong and should be condemned.
He reasons that if we just affirm their choice, then no transgender person would commit suicide,
and this is more in line with Jesus' teachings.
What are your thoughts about this argument?
I do not want anyone to take their own life, and I would never want harm to come to anyone,
but I do not agree with this rationale.
His basic premise seems to be that we change the Bible and science
so that people can live whatever lifestyle they choose.
There appear to be no surrender, no call for devotion to God and His holiness in his argument.
It seems that he focuses only on the love of God and none of God's other attributes
like wrath, holiness, redemption, etc.
I wanted to hear your take on it.
you Well, I think what you said is exactly right.
I would add two things.
Number one, on the suicide argument, it's of course absurd to suggest that simply by affirming biological truth, we are somehow causing people to commit suicide.
That is emotional blackmail of the worst and most cynical kind.
And also on the suicide note, it's just not true that transgender people are committing suicide at a higher rate because of bullying.
That is not true.
It is true that they're committing suicide at an astronomically higher rate.
Their rate of suicide attempts, I think is somewhere around 40%.
If I'm, if I'm remembering correctly, it's something, something in that ballpark, very extremely high.
But what you find is in any culture across the world, No matter if it's an affirming culture or not, no matter if it's progressive or conservative, the transgender suicide rate remains extremely, extremely high.
So you cannot chalk it up to bullying.
If it was all about that, then what you should find is that in a backwards conservative culture, quote unquote, you got the high suicide rate.
But then if it's a more liberal place, more liberal culture, the suicide rate is back around the average for everybody else.
That's not what you find.
Also, in fact, you know, I think when you look throughout history and you see examples of actual persecuted minorities, such as the black community in this country prior to civil rights, or so many other examples across the world and across history, you don't find, among black people in this country, in the Jim Crow South, their suicide rate was not 40%.
I'm not sure that it was even any higher than just the national average at that time.
In fact, what you find usually is that, or oftentimes, persecuted minorities, sometimes the suicide rate goes down because there's this effect of coming together and resisting the oppression.
And so you actually find that sometimes.
But what you don't find, I'm not aware of any other example of a persecuted minority, and transgender people are not a persecuted minority in this country, but I'm, for the sake of argument, lumping them in with that category.
I'm not aware of any other example of a persecuted minority with a suicide rate of 40%.
to 40%. Why is that? That's that's noticeable, isn't it?
Doesn't that require an explanation?
Or are we going to pretend that the, quote, persecution of transgenders in 2019 American culture is worse than what black people went through in, say, the year 1905 in Alabama?
Is anyone really going to pretend that?
I don't think you want to make that claim.
Yet the suicide rate is so, so, so much higher.
Why is that?
You need an explanation that goes beyond external factors like supposed bullying and so on.
I think you have to look inside internally.
And I think the reason clearly is that these are people who are struggling to accept themselves for who they are.
And that is why we do have compassion for them.
Until they start cruelly and arrogantly bullying others and trying to victimize women, then I think at that point we draw the line and say, that's it.
Sympathy's over.
Because now we're going to be protecting these girls over here.
Now I'm more concerned about protecting the girls and children than I am about your feelings.
But as long as that's not happening, yeah, we have compassion and everything.
Because of this is what's going on internally, and that's what leads to the suicide rate.
And this is exactly why we don't, quote, affirm.
Because this confusion is what is causing their despair.
And so when you affirm them in their despair, you are just causing them to plunge deeper into the confusion, which is the source of the despair.
So that's how I would respond to that.
Let's see.
This is from Matthew, says, according to AOC, cows are part of the climate change problem.
Using her logic, or lack thereof, do you think her plans should now include eliminating farting Swalwells too?
Now that's a really important point I didn't mention yesterday.
We were talking about Eric Swalwell's fart on live TV and I spent 10 minutes, I started my show.
I did start the show with 10 minutes of analyzing Swalwell farting.
That's the kind of quality content you get from me.
But yeah, I think, look, Swalwell, Melted an entire glacier just with that one nuclear rectal blast.
And so I think that if we're talking about taxes on carbon emissions, I think it needs to be taxed for that.
I think that there should be, and I don't know why AOC isn't stepping up to the plate on this, but if you think about how much he himself just with that one fart contributed to global warming, Now, we know that we have 10 years left on Earth.
Just with that one gaseous explosion, he's actually knocked two years off of the lifespan of the Earth.
Now we only have eight years.
And I think he needs to be held accountable for that.
So I'm in total agreement with you, and I thank you for bringing up that point.
And I think we'll leave it there, everybody.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
Buck, buck, buck.
Chick-fil-A.
Chickens out.
And you know what?
That's more important than anything that's going on in Congress.
