All Episodes
Previous Next
March 18, 2021 - The Matt Walsh Show
44:46
Ep. 681 - Everything Is White Supremacy
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, two black teens burned a white man to death and the media all but completely ignored the story.
Meanwhile, an attack on massage parlors in Atlanta is being desperately linked to white supremacy despite a total lack of evidence for the connection.
Plus, five headlines including the State Department battling the scourge of entrenched whiteness, Ron DeSantis battling the much more serious scourge of critical race theory, and a GoFundMe for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
Somehow fails to gain traction.
I don't know how.
In our daily cancellation, we'll deal with an article in the Scientific American which tries to debunk the case for banning males from female sports.
Does it succeed in debunking it?
We'll find that out today and so much more on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
This past June, a woman named Althea Bernstein claimed that she was set on
fire by four white men while waiting at a stoplight in the middle of
downtown Madison, Wisconsin at 1 AM.
She said the assailants, who happened to be standing in the middle of the street with all the necessary materials for whatever reason, doused her with lighter fluid and then threw a lighter into the car.
You know, like they do in the movies where they throw a lighter and then something lights on fire?
It doesn't really work with most lighters in real life, but that's what she said, and it set her face on fire.
Somehow, she was left only with a few splotchy burns on one side of her face after her face being on fire.
One would expect a bit more visible damage from having her whole face set ablaze.
One would also expect that four flame-throwing murderous white guys attempting to burn people alive in the middle of the city would attract the attention of at least a few witnesses, not to mention security cameras.
But the alleged men and the alleged attack was witnessed by no one, and no evidence of the assailants appeared on any camera anywhere in the city.
There was also no trace of burn marks or accelerant in the vehicle she was driving when she was supposedly set on fire.
So police investigated the hate crime claim and eventually closed the case because they could not find a single shred of evidence to substantiate it.
Althea's attackers vanished into the night, much like Jussie Smollett's attackers and the terrorists who hung a rope in Bubba Wallace's garage.
It's almost as though they never existed at all.
But despite the fact that this event, as reported by Bernstein, was almost certainly a hoax, and had all the hallmarks of a hoax from the very beginning, still it made headlines.
And as you'd expect, the races of the victim and her probably imaginary attackers were front and center in the headlines.
The headlines only disappeared once it became clear that the story was turning into an embarrassment for those who hyped it up to begin with.
Now, I bring this case up now, again, because it provides an interesting contrast.
Consider now the case of Stephen Ammenhauser, 53 years old, mentally ill, now dead after being brutally murdered last week.
Two black teenagers, Xavion Perry and Adriel Riley Jr., ages 16 and 14, have been charged with entering his home and setting him on fire.
According to police, they watched him burn for a little bit before leaving.
The victim was eventually found, transported to a hospital where he succumbed to his burns after a couple of days.
He suffered what is quite literally the most painful death possible.
No motive has been given for the crime and there's no indication that hate crime charges are even being considered at this point.
Which doesn't mean that there's no evidence that it was a hate crime.
It just means that they're not considering right now calling it that.
I ask you, have you heard about this case?
I mean, heard about it somewhere besides from me right now, or one of the other hosts, or our website?
And if you did hear about it, did you hear about the races of the people involved?
Almost certainly not.
A search on Google turns up a few articles about this crime, which didn't, it's not like this happened 10 years ago, it happened just last week.
But nothing, I mean nothing, in any mainstream outlet mentioning the racial dichotomy.
Is that because the media has decided that race is now irrelevant in violent crime?
Well, we know that's certainly not the case.
All we have to do is look at the other tragic event of the past week, which happened when a man walked into massage parlors in Atlanta and murdered eight people.
The killer is white.
Six of the victims were Asian.
Two were white.
Now here, it would be hard to find headlines that don't mention the races of those involved and expressly draw a connection between race and the crime.
We're told that this is the result of white supremacy, that the killer was a white supremacist, one of many, out to kill Asians.
The only problem is that there is no evidence of that.
Here's a police spokesman yesterday telling us what they know about the motive at this point.
Listen.
The suspect did take responsibility for the shootings.
He said that early on, once we began the interviews with him.
He claims that these, and as the chief said, this is still early, but he does claim that it was not racially motivated.
He apparently has an issue, what he considers a sex conviction, and sees these locations as something that allows him to go to these places, and it's a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate.
Like I said, it's still early on, but those were comments that he made.
Not that I'm aware of.
None political.
I've heard nothing about politics.
Not that I'm aware of.
Not that I'm aware of.
Non-political. I've heard nothing about politics.
Well, that's what he says.
Now, typically, the person who commits the act is a pretty good authority on what their motivation was.
Also, typically, if someone is, and we know this from past events, mass killings and so on, attacks that are racially or ethnically motivated, oftentimes the person who does it for those reasons is happy to tell you that that was the reason.
So by all accounts, it sounds like this was a lunatic motivated by sexual rage and jealousy.
Could still turn out that there was more to it than that, but that's what we know right now.
That would explain why he killed both Asian and white women.
The disappointment from the left to the news that this was not racially motivated, as far as we know, has been palpable.
For many of them, from what it seems, the tragedy is not that humans died, but that the crime isn't useful to their narrative.
I mean, the media is downright excited by, happy about, violent crime committed by white men.
I mean, they are happy about it.
They like it.
They can barely contain their glee.
In their minds, humans are not anything but props anyway.
They have no value.
None of us have value to the media outside of our political usefulness.
And that's why there was a mad rush to declare this crime not only racially motivated, but part of a trend, an epidemic, a pandemic of whiteness, as the website The Root put it.
Sure, the facts don't fit with this narrative, but so what?
Facts can be manipulated, ignored, invented, lied about, as we have seen.
As for the real facts, it must be noted that, yes, there has been a rise in violent crime against Asians.
But much of that has come at the hands of non-white people.
A lot of violence against Asians is committed by black men.
It's just a fact.
Anti-Asian sentiment has been a problem in the black community for a long time, and you don't have to take my word for it.
It's not just me telling you that.
The left-wing media admits this, but of course they put the blame elsewhere.
So take this headline from Vox on Tuesday, echoing a common talking point that you see all over social media and the media right now.
Their headline is, The History of Tensions and Solidarity Between Black and Asian American Communities Explained.
And then the subtitle, How White Supremacy Tried to Divide Black and Asian Americans and How Communities Work to Find Common Ground.
Okay, so acknowledging these tensions, but these tensions between the two non-white groups of people are the fault of, you guessed it, white people, of course.
Well, that's easy to determine when everything is the fault of white people.
You know, I wonder if this is the fault of white people too.
In February, an Asian woman in Milwaukee was tortured, raped, beaten, and killed in a park in broad daylight.
She was apparently hanging out in the park, laying on a blanket in the park.
And next thing you know, she's being taken, tortured, raped, and beaten.
Two black teenagers were arrested for that crime.
Now there's another story that you probably didn't hear about, and if you did hear about it, most likely not what the race is highlighted or mentioned at all.
Liz Plank, an MSNBC contributor, tweeted in response to the massage parlor killings.
She said, white masculinity fetishizes and dehumanizes Asian women.
And it is intrinsically tied to racism.
It's crucial that we don't erase the way that misogyny and racism operate together to justify killing Asian women.
Now, I haven't checked, admittedly, but I feel rather certain, and I will eat my words if I'm wrong, I feel rather certain that she never said anything about black masculinity dehumanizing and fetishizing Asian women in response to the rape and murder of Miss Leah Milwaukee.
The media has its villains, and also its good guys.
Every story is already written.
It's only a matter of making reality fit into the boxes that they have set up for it.
Whatever can't be fit is simply discarded or denied.
As they say, when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Well, when you're the American media, everything looks like white supremacy.
And whatever doesn't look like it doesn't exist.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
It could not be more important than it is right now to support companies that
have our values and our morals and support us in the culture.
And one company that I'm always telling you about, of course, is Charity Mobile.
And I tell you about them because I use Charity Mobile and they really are a great company.
They're the pro-life phone company because 5% of your monthly plan price goes to the pro-life, pro-family charity of your choice.
A lot of other perks on top of that.
You get new activations, eligible accounts, get a free cell phone with free activation and free shipping.
There's no contract, no termination fees, and that means that they're not getting you locked into anything.
You might as well try it out, see if you like the service.
I think you will.
You're also gonna like that they have live customer service based right here in the USA.
You have the ability to block use of cellular data, picture messages, text messages on any or all of your
accounts so you get that extra security for your kids especially and on top of all of that,
the free apps to monitor your usage and everything else, you're also helping to build a culture of life in America
while supporting a pro-life phone company.
You can turn everyday living into effortless giving for the charity of your choice with Charity Mobile.
What you gotta do is call them at 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at charitymobile.com.
The House just passed this resolution to give congressional gold medals to the Capitol Police
for their courage in the face of the quote, insurrection, which is how the resolution phrases it,
calling it an insurrection.
Um, and.
And it was voted and approved by almost everyone, with the exception of 12 Republicans who said that they're not going to vote for this.
And of course, now they're being, well, how dare you?
Leftists are pretending to be offended that these 12 Republicans allegedly aren't supporting the police.
Well, how could you not?
These are the police!
Back the blue!
Thomas Massey, one of the congressmen who voted against the measure, explained his reasoning, and he said one of the big reasons is that they call it an insurrection.
You know, we have this official document calling it an insurrection while we're in the middle of criminal cases tied to this event, and so I don't want to be involved in that.
Call it something else, because that can be prejudicial, call it something else and I'll vote for it.
That's a very good reason not to vote for it.
The other reason not to vote for it is that this is, of course, we know, entirely political.
The Capitol Police, these are the only police officers in the country that the Democrats have ever shown any support for.
They just now have discovered their great passion for, you know, protecting law enforcement and supporting law enforcement, but only those law enforcement officers who were there on that particular day.
Really, with a Republican, so it's all a charade.
It's all a political charade, obviously.
And, of course, most Republicans are too stupid to see that or too cowardly to do anything about it, so they go along, they go right along with it.
Because they're afraid if they vote against it that the media's gonna be mad at us and they're gonna be mad at you no matter what you do.
It's obviously a political charade.
The point is not to give the medals to the police officers.
The point is to call it an insurrection again.
That's entirely political.
Why would you go along with it knowing that?
What I'd like to see the Republicans do, if they had any spine, they'd pass a resolution to give or put together a resolution to give congressional gold medals to all the police officers across the country who defended our cities from BLM terrorists and call them that in the resolution.
Of course, the only problem is that in so many cases, the police did not defend the cities from the BLM terrorists, but instead sat back and let it all happen.
But even so.
All right, let's go.
That wasn't my number one.
What's my number one?
Here, from the Daily Wire.
The Department of Defense is not the only cabinet-level agency undergoing a woke makeover.
According to Politico, the State Department is also wrestling with its identity and racing to address a 232-year history of, quote, entrenched whiteness.
Politico reports that Anthony Blinken's State Department is racing to address a 232-year-old problem, the overwhelming and entrenched whiteness Of the nation's oldest government agency.
The department's 23,000 or so American staff may be the global face of America, but they don't look like it.
And the gap is growing, not shrinking by many metrics.
Though 40% of the American population is from a racial or ethnic minority, only 13% of the department's senior executive services are people of color.
And so this is a big problem we have to do something about.
You know what?
I agree.
It's a big problem.
I think that all the white people in the State Department should step down.
In fact, I think that all of the white people in Biden's government should do the right thing and step down, including himself.
Entrenched whiteness is a big, big problem.
I agree.
If you really cared about it.
These are white people, again, including Biden, trying to supposedly address the problem of entrenched whiteness, whatever the hell that is.
Seems like you should probably, as Michael Jackson would say, start with the man in the mirror.
Look at yourself.
I think that's the best thing Joe Biden could do.
He could hold a press conference today and say, listen, we've had Almost nothing but white men as president, and it's too much, and it's wrong, and so I'm gonna step down and resign.
If he really cared, that's what he would do.
Of course, I say that I would want him to do that, but then we'd end up with Kamala Harris, so I'm not sure how much better that would really be.
And we already have, really, President Kamala Harris, so I guess it would be sort of a lateral move.
Anyway, more diversity news.
Governor Newsom has, in California, has pledged to nominate a black woman to replace Senator Feinstein if she retires.
Now, it doesn't look like Senator Feinstein is retiring, but if she does, here's what Newsom says he will do.
Let's watch.
Okay, we are out of time, out of time, out of time.
I have to go to a break, but this is a yes or no answer that you could give me.
If, in fact, Dianne Feinstein were to retire, will you nominate an African American woman to restore the seat that Kamala Harris is no longer in the United States Senate, and do you have a name in mind?
I have multiple names in mind.
We have multiple names in mind, and the answer is yes.
The answer is yes.
This clearly, obviously, should be illegal.
It should be illegal to declare ahead of time what race you're looking for for a particular job.
It is illegal, actually, at least in the private sector.
You shouldn't be able to do that.
That's discrimination.
You're declaring ahead of time that you're discriminating against anyone who does not fall into this particular group.
So that should be illegal, to do that.
On top of the fact that, obviously, it's... On top of being discriminatory, it's also infantilizing.
The left, as we know, doesn't care about this, but... He's saying this ahead of time, And then you are the black woman who gets nominated for the seat.
You know that a big part of the reason is only because of the color of your skin and your gender.
You know that.
He said it.
I know if it were me, I would, I'd be kind of insulted by that.
I would want to at least think that my achievements and my talent, that's the reason I got the position or nominated for the position.
But he's saying ahead of time, that's not it.
We're not taking that.
That's not the first thing we're looking at.
So I'm not nominating you, I'm nominating your skin pigmentation and your genitals.
That's what I'm nominating.
Because that's what I'm making this decision based on.
Seems pretty insulting to me.
Also sounds pretty dehumanizing, actually.
All right, number two, the IRS is planning to delay, so this is good news, I guess, to delay the tax deadline to May 15th.
Actually, I think May 17th they're delaying it to.
So usually, obviously, April 15th, you got an extra month, which is nice.
But my thing is, they should delay it until never.
That's what it should be.
It should be delayed until never.
There really shouldn't be any income tax at all.
But especially right now, if you're worried about helping Americans who've been affected by the pandemic, if you want them to have more money in their pockets, so they can go out and put it into the economy, then that's what you would do.
But what does it tell you?
As I've brought up before, what does it tell you that through the last year, Republicans and Democrats, all of our politicians coming up with ideas of how can we stimulate the economy?
How can we help people get through this and all of that?
Nobody even really suggested suspending the income tax completely for a year or two.
That wasn't even put on the table for consideration.
Instead, we're going to spend trillions of dollars to send money out to people rather than simply letting them keep their own money.
Now, you might point out that just spending the income tax isn't going to help people who lost their jobs because they don't have an income, which, yeah, that's true.
But as we know, the stimulus checks already are going to a lot of people who didn't lose their jobs.
That's what I would, if it were me, that's what I would go with.
Let people keep their own money.
Rather than giving people money, first thing, or first step, default position should be let people keep their own money.
Number three, we played the clip a couple days ago of Don Lemon on The View saying that God doesn't judge people, and there was more to that interview.
I think this is the same interview, at least.
It's just gone viral now, and gone viral for all the wrong reasons.
We have a little bit more theological insight from Don Lemon that is almost as good as the God doesn't judge people bit.
Let's listen to that.
And we also have to start being realistic about God and the Bible.
And if you are a person of faith in this country, and we know America is built on faith and religious freedom, then we have to, I think, a good way of starting is to present the true identity of Jesus.
And that is as a black or a brown person, rather than someone who looks like a white hippie from Sweden or Norway.
And I think we should start with a true depiction of what Jesus looked like, and put that in your home.
Either a black Jesus or a brown Jesus, because we know Jesus looked more like a Muslim or someone who was dark, rather than someone who was blonde, a blonde-looking carpenter.
And then when your children ask you, who is this?
This is Jesus.
Jesus was Middle Eastern.
Bethlehem was not in Sweden.
And so, Jesus does not look like the popular depiction that we have in our churches, and in our homes, and that we see all over the media.
And I think that is a good place to start, and that is a good place that your kids will ask questions, and then you can go from there.
And then we can come to a true reality about what America really is.
Okay.
Oh, Bethlehem isn't in Sweden?
I had no idea!
Wow, Don Lemon, thanks!
First time hearing that!
Now, a few problems here.
Number one, who cares what this person thinks?
Like, why are we getting parenting advice from him?
Why are we bringing him in to give advice to parents or to give advice to Christians on the best way to observe their faith?
What kind of religious icons they should have in their home?
I'm not really sure I want anyone's advice on that, but why Don Lemon, of all people?
He is among the last that I would go to for advice on that.
Another big problem is that he says Jesus would have looked Muslim.
Well, kind of an issue here.
Islam didn't exist 2,000 years ago.
When Jesus was physically walking the earth, there was no such thing as Muslim people.
So that's a problem.
You know what he looked like?
He looked like a Jew, because he was.
He looked like a Middle Eastern Jew, which is what he was.
But Don Lemon goes with, he looked Muslim, a religion that didn't exist and wouldn't exist for another 600 years, instead of just saying, Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew.
Which, by the way, we all know that.
I love how the left, because they don't know, they don't understand anything about religious people.
You know, except for their own religious cult of leftism.
They get that.
They understand their own.
But they don't understand Christians.
And so, they always think that they're blowing our minds by saying, hey, did you know that Jesus wasn't white?
What?
He wasn't?
This whole time I thought he... Yeah, we're well aware of that.
Not troubled by it at all.
Now, and the thing is, the majority of Christians on earth also are not white.
You know, Christianity is not even close to an exclusively white religion.
Never has been.
That doesn't trouble us.
We're well aware of that.
No, it's you who doesn't appear to be aware of that.
That's something you need to remind yourself.
Christianity is not white supremacy.
That's a reminder you need.
We know that.
In fact, many of the most persecuted and oppressed people across the globe are non-white Christians.
Because they are Christians in Africa, parts of Asia, Middle East, North Korea.
They were sent to concentration camps.
And for the most part, not white, is where they live.
And these are among the most oppressed and persecuted people on the globe.
Again, a reminder that someone like Don Lemon needs, not us.
We know that.
All right, number four, Ron DeSantis continues to be the best elected Republican in the country, and I think at this point he's just kind of spiking the football or lapping the field, whatever sports metaphor you want.
Hitting home runs, dunking the ball.
Anyway, and it's a low bar, I admit, to be the best elected Republican in the country, but even so, here's what he announced yesterday.
Let's listen.
Florida civics curriculum will incorporate foundational concepts with the best materials
and it will expressly exclude unsanctioned narratives like critical race theory and other unsubstantiated
theories.
Let me be clear, there's no room in our classrooms for things like critical race theory.
Teaching kids to hate their country and to hate each other is not worth one red cent of taxpayer money.
So we will invest in actual, solid, true curriculum, and we will be a leader in the development and implementation of a world-class civics education.
Yeah, obviously, exactly what needs to happen.
This shouldn't even need to be a discussion.
Clearly, critical race theory does not belong in the classroom.
If you want to pick up books on that subject yourself and indoctrinate yourself, you're more than free to do so.
And if you want to elect a class on a subject like that in college, and you want to send yourself into bankruptcy, you want to take on all that debt, To be indoctrinated into that, have at it.
But it shouldn't be in grade school, where our kids cannot choose it, are totally susceptible to it, don't have the psychological equipment yet to understand that they're being indoctrinated, and to separate fact from fiction, and narrative from reality, and so it doesn't belong in the classroom.
The only thing I would add to that is, If we're talking about theories that need to be taken out of the classroom, critical race theory, also gender theory, does not belong in the classroom.
Those two theories don't belong in the classroom.
Really, any time something has theory attached to it, doesn't mean we don't teach it.
I mean, there are obviously theories that we do need to teach.
But that's something you gotta look at.
A theory, okay, that should attract extra scrutiny.
And maybe we could just sum it up this way.
If it's not a valid scientific theory, like the theory of gravity, let's say, if it's not a valid scientific theory, then it doesn't belong in the classroom.
Scientific theories are systems to explain what we observe in the natural world.
So they're very valuable in the scientific context.
But leftist theories, these systems to explain what we observe culturally and in society, those don't belong.
All right, number five from the Daily Wire.
It says a GoFundMe set up to help Harry and Meghan to pay off the $14 million mortgage in their California home has folded after less than a week.
An alleged Harry and Meghan mega fan set up the fund after hearing of the couple's financial troubles in their interview with Oprah Winfrey.
Memorably, Harry, who has a trust fund from his mother worth millions and was previously supported by a generous grant from his father, complained that he and Meghan had to find paying jobs in order to afford private security and their modest home.
Then he complained that they'd been cut off financially.
So then this GoFundMe was set up by a generous benefactor, or...
You know, wannabe benefactor.
Anastasia Hansen set up the GoFundMe account.
And she explained when she set it up, when they came to the USA, they were without jobs and with limited funds.
They've stated and they've had a very rough time.
So this fundraiser is a way to give help, compassion and love by paying their home loan in full.
We're 2 million supporters to donate just $5 each.
The goal is met and the loan can be paid off.
On top of that, you can have the peace of mind of knowing that you helped these multi-millionaires pay for their mansion.
You know, and you can't put a price tag on that.
Anyway, the GoFundMe raised a total of $110, which is $110 too much.
And it raises a lot of questions about the psychology of the people who donated to this
or set it up.
And it also goes back to the question of why is this deadbeat loser, Prince Harry, depending on his parents?
You're in your 30s and saying, my parents have cut me off financially.
Of course they have.
Yes.
Even if you weren't rich.
In your 30s, you ought to be cut off financially.
Time to leave the nest and fly on your own, baby bird.
And if you can't, then you'll splat on the pavement, and such is life.
All right, let's move on to reading the YouTube comments.
Let's see, Preston Wade says, Matt is the peak of stereotypical fathers.
I'll take it.
I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but I'll take it.
And even though I don't know what you mean, it's probably true.
Rachel says, Matt would probably be horrified to learn that my bunny sleeps in my bed with me at night.
So you have essentially what is a large rodent, maybe not technically, sleeping in your bed with you.
Yeah, I am pretty horrified by that.
But in fairness, I'm no more horrified than I am by the people that have their dog sleeping in bed with them.
As I already established, dogs don't belong in the home, they belong outside.
Animals in general.
There should be no species, aside from the human species, inside the home.
Homes are for humans.
So we invented homes.
Animals lived for millions of years without homes.
At least without constructed dwellings, like what we have.
Four walls and a ceiling.
They did just fine.
And if they can, if they can't survive without it, then again, that's nature taking its course.
Abby Runyon says, Matt, have you ever been to Kansas City, Missouri?
I swear I saw you years ago at a Barnes and Noble here in Kansas City.
I even followed you around for a while because I was seriously convinced it was you, and I've been a fan since your early blog days.
If it was you, that's awesome.
If not, shame on you for not visiting one of the greatest cities in the world.
Abby, that was not me.
You were following around some poor random guy with a beard, probably scaring this guy half to death.
And you are obviously banned from the show, but thank you for being a fan until this moment, when you are now banned.
And finally, Jareth says, I think Matt Walsh is unfairly maligning my culture.
In Australia, we abbreviate nearly everything, sometimes even other abbreviations.
Yeah, I did hear this a lot when I complained yesterday about grownups putting an E sound at the end of words, abbreviating words with an E sound, comfy, veggie, stimmy, that's the latest.
I heard from a lot of people in Australia saying that that's part of their culture, but I mean, Australia is also a place.
Australia is in many ways a horrifying, nightmarish land of man-eating spiders and so forth that crawl from the ceilings in your home.
So I'm not going to take that as our example that we should emulate.
So that does not at all come close to justifying it.
And it does not take a lot of effort, whatever the full word is, stimulus.
Take out a stopwatch.
How long does it take you to say the word stimulus?
Now compare it to stimmy.
Almost the same amount of time.
Have some dignity.
Some self-respect.
Now I want to tell you about our friends at Rock Auto.
You know, as the weather is warming up, people are emerging outside, out into society again in more ways than one.
You don't want to waste time at auto parts stores.
If you have any problem with a car or you need auto parts for any reason, that's the last thing you want to do is be inside an auto parts store.
And not only are you cooped up inside, but you're also You're going to be spending more than you need to spend.
You're going to be dealing with a frustrating lack of selections and lack of options.
Why do that when you can go to RockAuto.com?
RockAuto.com always offers the lowest prices possible.
You know that they're going to do that and they're going to be honest with you because RockAuto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
You can go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers Best of all, the prices at rockauto.com are reliably low and they're the same whether you're professional or do-it-yourself or doesn't matter.
You're going to get the same great price.
The rockauto.com catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.
You can quickly find all the parts that are available for your car or truck and all the specifications and everything you need at rockauto.com.
So, go to rockauto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car or truck.
And remember, of course, to write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that we sent you.
Also, you know there's a buzz in the air here at The Daily Wire.
Candace Owens filmed the first episode of her new show yesterday and it's all anyone in the office can talk about this morning.
Folks, you're going to love the show.
Candace premieres tomorrow and it will be unlike any other Daily Wire show you've seen before.
And if you would like a sneak peek of her new show, and honestly why wouldn't you, Join Candace Owens and the rest of the Daily Wire gang tonight for a special edition of Backstage.
We're going to discuss Candace's new show, as well as the big picture issues affecting our nation, namely Joe Biden's terrifying accomplishments, if we can call it that, also Cardi B's Grammy performance, everything else that's going on.
You can join Candace and the rest of the crew live at 7 p.m.
Eastern, 6 p.m.
Here in Nashville at dailywire.com or the Daily Wire YouTube channel to be a part of the conversation.
And don't forget, Candice premieres tomorrow.
It'll be exclusive to Daily Wire members.
And if you want to watch the show, go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code Candice.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So the interesting thing about the debate surrounding biological males and women's sports is that there really isn't any debate at all.
You know, a debate involves argument, an exchange of ideas between people of opposing sides on a particular issue.
And this requires each side to have some sort of And for them each to present that point of view in a manner that might be intelligible to their opponents, none of that is happening with respect to this issue.
The side which favors opening up female sports and locker rooms to males has not bothered to launch any coherent defense of this change or give any good reason for anyone to agree with it, other than to scream empty buzzwords like bigot and transphobes at those who fail to cooperate with them.
Carl Sagan liked to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Now, it could just as well be said that extraordinary policy proposals require extraordinary justifications.
In this case, there is both an extraordinary claim that some males are really women and an extraordinary proposal that biological sex should not be considered as a factor in who gets admitted into women's sports, yet there is nothing approaching extraordinary evidence or extraordinary justification for these assertions.
There is not even ordinary evidence and justification.
There is nothing.
Those who favor putting males in female sports have not bothered to defend their claim at all or to engage with the points raised by the other side.
The points on the other side are simple, straightforward, but also powerful.
For example, here's author Abigail Schreier testifying before the Senate yesterday about the so-called Equality Act and raising a number of, I think, very pertinent questions.
Let's listen.
If your daughter or granddaughter was the top high school tennis player in her state, and then five biological boys suddenly decided at the age of 17 to identify as female, should she drop overnight to number six?
Should she lose her college scholarship to a male-bodied athlete who would never have qualified on the boys' team?
Does that strike any member of this committee as fair or just?
If a woman in your state commits a crime, should she be put in a correctional facility with biological males, some of whom are sex offenders?
Some of whom may have only begun identifying as female weeks earlier.
All of whom could easily overpower her.
If a preschool has a policy that only female teachers may accompany little girls to the bathroom, and your daughter's male teacher suddenly identifies as female, ought that teacher to have a legal entitlement to accompany her?
Does that strike anyone in this room as safe or sensible?
Those are good questions, questions that need to be answered by the people proposing this stuff, but they won't answer them.
They have again nothing to offer.
So to illustrate my point, let's turn to a recent article in the allegedly reputable publication Scientific American.
The piece, written by child psychiatrist Dr. Jack Turbin, titled, Trans Girls Belong on Girls' Sports Teams, claims that there is no scientific case for excluding biological males from female sports.
Now, this is certainly extraordinary.
No case?
It's been thought for millennia that males have biological advantages over women, that give them the edge in sports, combat, and other physical contests.
Jack Turbin insists that there is no scientific case, not simply a weak case, but no case at all, to support this bias.
He then spends several thousand words explaining why, except he never does explain why.
The actual article itself doesn't prove or even really attempt to prove the opening thesis.
Here's what it says instead.
The article begins with the lawsuit filed in federal court by the family of three girls, cis girls as the author calls them, in an effort to make biological females seem like but one possible type of girl, one variant.
They're suing the Connecticut Association of Schools for allowing boys to compete against girls in track and field.
The author, Turbin, attempts to debunk the premise of the lawsuit, writing, quote, After the Connecticut lawsuit was filed by the cisgender girls' families, one of those girls beat one of the transgender girls named in the lawsuit in a Connecticut state championship.
It turns out that when transgender girls play on girl sports teams, Cisgender girls can win.
In fact, the vast majority of female athletes are cisgender, as are the vast majority of winners.
There's no epidemic of transgender girls dominating female sports.
Attempts to force transgender girls to play on the boys' team are unconscionable attacks on already marginalized transgender children, and they don't address a real problem.
They're unscientific, and they would cause serious mental health damage to both cisgender and transgender youth.
Now, obviously, the fact that Some girls can beat some guys in some sports sometimes does not at all prove that boys don't have an inherent advantage.
I'm sure there are some blind people who can beat some seeing people in a game of darts, but no sane person would suggest that sight is not an advantage in a contest like that.
The point with respect to those male athletes running track in Connecticut Is that they were winning gold, silver, and bronze medals with times that would not have qualified them to step onto the track against the men.
Against the men, against their fellow males, they were subpar runners.
12th, 13th, 14th, 15th place, or worse.
Against the women, they were top competitors.
That's the advantage.
And this scientific article doesn't so much as try to deal with that fact.
It just ignores the fact, as it ignores every other fact.
Later on it says, "The notion of transgender girls having an unfair advantage comes from
the idea that testosterone causes physical changes such as an increase in muscle mass.
But transgender girls are not the only girls with high testosterone levels."
An estimated 10% of women have polycystic ovarian syndrome, which results in elevated testosterone levels.
They are not banned from female sports.
Transgender girls on puberty blockers, on the other hand, have negligible testosterone levels.
Yet these state bills would force them to play with the boys.
Plus, the athletic advantage conferred by the testosterone is equivocal.
As Katrina Karkazi, a senior visiting fellow and expert on testosterone and bioethics at Yale University explains, studies of testosterone levels in athletics do not show any clear consistent relationship between testosterone and athletic performance.
Sometimes testosterone is associated with better performance, but other studies show weak links or no links.
And yet others show testosterone is associated with worse performance.
The bill's premise lacks scientific validity.
Okay.
Now, Even if I were to simply accept this ridiculous claim that testosterone doesn't give you an advantage, or even it's a disadvantage in a physical sport, and even if I were to pretend that there's some relevance to the minority of women with an ovarian condition that gives them more of the hormone, even if I were to accept all of that, and even if I were to pretend again for the sake of this argument, which he wants us to pretend, that all of the male athletes competing against women are on puberty blockers, which is not true,
Well, let's just give him all of that.
It still would not come close to proving the case that men have no physical advantage over women in sports.
Testosterone is but one factor.
One.
As an article in Live Science in 2017 noted, an article that would probably not be published today, Men, along with having up to 20 times more testosterone than women, also have greater muscle mass, larger fast-twitch muscle fibers, larger lungs, larger hearts, longer legs, smaller waist, less body fat.
And this is but a partial list.
All of these physical factors give men a distinct, profound, significant physical advantage.
This is why all of the fastest and strongest people in the world are men.
This is why there is no state in the union where the top female runners have, on average, faster times than the top male runners.
This is why a decent male high school basketball player could walk into the WNBA and dominate without having to try that hard.
It all comes back to physiology.
And this article, which is supposed to be providing a thorough scientific case for allowing males in women's sports does not deal with any of these physiological factors.
Those two paragraphs that I read are the extent of the scientific case presented.
From there, his argument revolves solely around the feelings of trans athletes, claiming that it will be emotionally painful for some men if they're not allowed to compete against women.
But this is negated by the fact that it's emotionally painful for women to have their privacy and athletic opportunities stolen by men.
At a minimum, we have an emotional wash, right?
A stalemate, with both sides making emotional claims.
Now in reality, the emotions of the men are far outweighed by the women, both because there are a lot more women affected, and because the emotional demands of the men are far more unreasonable than that of the women.
But even if we pretend again, that it's an even emotional match, still we are left having to fall back on the scientific argument.
As far as that goes, as we have seen, the other side really has no scientific argument at all.
Which doesn't stop them from publishing in something called Scientific American.
And so, that's why the author of this article is cancelled.
And anyone who reads that article, or at least reads the headline, which is what most people will do, and what they're counting on you doing, and is simply persuaded that, well, the article says it in the headline, it's in something called Scientific American, well, they must have a scientific case.
Anyone dumb enough to do that, and I fear there are millions of them, also cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by Danny D'Amico, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
A prominent lobbyist can't tell the Senate how many sexes there are, Joe Biden forgets what he said a few months ago, and America can't make sense of a tragic shooting.
▲
Export Selection