Ep. 968 - The Leftist Plot To Destroy Childhood Innocence
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a proposed law in Texas has propelled the Left to openly defend child drag shows. One such defender says that childhood innocence is a myth and fueled by prejudice. A revealing admission. We’ll talk about it. Also, a crazed leftist tries to kill Brett Kavanaugh, but you’d never know it if you rely on corporate media for your news. Plus, Joe Biden disintegrates on live TV while talking to Jimmy Kimmel. Joy Behar claims that black people don’t have guns. We’ll fact check that claim. And a DisneyLand employee is feeling the heat for intervening in a marriage proposal. In our Daily Cancellation, a popular YouTuber debunks my film What Is A Woman. Or so I’m told. We’ll take a look and see how he did.
Watch my new Daily Wire original documentary “What Is A Woman?” at whatisawoman.com.
I am a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/uevUc.
Join Matt and the Daily Wire crew for Backstage Live At The Ryman on June 29th. Get your tickets now: https://utm.io/uezFr
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Protect your online privacy with ExpressVPN. Visit EXPRESSVPN.com/WALSH 3 Months FREE.
Shop auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers. Visit www.RockAuto.com and enter "WALSH" in the 'How Did You Hear About Us' Box.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a proposed law in Texas has propelled the left to openly defend child drag shows.
One such defender says that childhood innocence is a myth and it's fueled by prejudice.
A revealing admission, we'll talk about it.
Also, a crazed leftist tries to kill Brett Kavanaugh, but you never know about that if you rely on the corporate media for your news.
Joe Biden disintegrates on live TV while talking to Jimmy Kimmel.
Joy Behar claims that black people don't have guns.
We will fact-check that claim.
And a Disneyland employee is feeling the heat for intervening in a marriage proposal.
In our Daily Cancellation, a popular YouTuber debunks my film, What is a Woman, or So I'm Told.
We'll take a look and see how he did.
all of that and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Have you ever heard of data brokers?
They're the middlemen collecting and selling all those digital footprints you leave online.
They can stitch together detailed profiles which include your browsing history, online searches, location data.
Then they sell the profile to a company who delivers you a targeted ad.
Well, no biggie, you might think.
Well, you might be surprised to learn that these same data brokers are also selling your information to the Department of Homeland Security, to the IRS.
I, for one, don't want the tax man showing up at my door because of some search I did on my phone.
So, to mask my digital footprints, I protect myself with ExpressVPN.
One of the easiest ways for brokers to aggregate data and tie it back to you is through your device's unique IP address, which also reveals information about your location.
When you're connected to ExpressVPN, your IP address is hidden.
That makes it much more difficult for data brokers to identify who you are.
ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to keep your data safe from hackers on public Wi-Fi.
That's why I have the ExpressVPN app downloaded on all of my devices, phone, computer, even my home Wi-Fi router.
All I do is tap one button to turn it on, And I'm protected.
It's really that easy.
So make sure your online activity and data is protected with the best VPN money can buy.
Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh right now.
Get three months for free through my special link.
That's ExpressVPN, E-X-P-R-E-S-S, VPN.com slash Walsh, ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh to learn more.
Well, you can't say they didn't warn us.
You may remember just a year ago when the gay men's choir in San Francisco went viral with a song promising that they'll convert our children and turn them gay.
And they weren't lying.
Of course, that was far from the beginning of the left's efforts to recruit children
into the alphabet cult, but they did ramp up their campaign considerably over the past
year.
We've seen them in the mainstream come out explicitly in favor of teaching kindergartners
about gender fluidity and transgenderism.
Again, something that was happening before this year, but now the only difference is
that they're very open in defending it.
And now in response to a proposed bill in Texas to outlaw child
Drag isn't sexual, is it?
seeing them circle the rainbow wagons around that particular brand of debauchery.
Some of the defenses of the practice have come in the form of sort of feigned obtuseness.
"Well, I don't see what the big deal is.
Drag isn't sexual, is it?"
Someone needs to explain to me why this is so harmful to kids.
Now, as I've been arguing now for days, the correct response to that kind of thing is
to place the burden back on them.
I don't need to, and shouldn't have to, explain to you why drag shows are harmful to kids.
Given that your side is introducing this concept, you must explain why it is helpful to kids.
In what way is a child's life enhanced by putting a dollar bill in the thong of a cross-dressing man while he gyrates around a gay bar?
Tell me why this should exist.
See, it's your idea.
You have to defend it.
But others on the left have been more open and unabashed in their child drag show advocacy.
Entertainment Weekly this morning has this headline.
It says, Drag Artists Slam Texas Bill That Could Ban Minors From Drag Shows.
The article quotes a number of drag artists, quote-unquote, the term being used very loosely, as we'll see, who insist that we would be oppressing them if they're prevented from cross-dressing in front of children.
They feel a deep and powerful urge to put on women's clothing and dance for young children, and any interference would be very painful for them, they explain.
Not exactly in those words, but just about.
One drag queen, who has spoken out, is named Maxi Glamour, and describes himself as a non-binary drag, quote, demon queen.
And you can see from the pictures on his website that he takes the demon role quite seriously.
he posted a tweet saying, "Kids are future rock stars.
They're future painters, future museum curators, or even future critics.
It's important that they grow up in a world where art is all around them,
because in the future, they'll be the ones keeping it alive."
Now, accompanying the caption is footage of him in full drag demon attire,
performing the flute for a group of toddlers.
The whole scene is like something out of a creepy medieval fable.
Let's watch for just a second here.
[Music]
So there you go. I still don't understand why these dudes always look like, you know, zombie Marge Simpsons or
something.
Now, again, you must explain, if you're an advocate for this, why do kids need that?
How does that help them?
How are they enriched by a cross-dressing man in a demon costume playing the flute for them?
They call this art, but even just judged on pure aesthetic grounds, it's ugly, gaudy, vulgar.
That goes for all drag.
I mean, we can't even be tempted to buy the, it's good to expose your kid to art, excuse, because along with being overtly sexual and inappropriate, it's terrible art.
Loud, obnoxious, hideous.
There's no beauty or talent or skill involved.
If I wanted my kids to be exposed to talentless, distasteful, garish, loud, lurid garbage, I can simply turn on the TV and flip to almost any channel.
So I don't need drag shows for that.
But art, of course, has nothing to do with it.
A woman named Natalie Wynn, who's a YouTuber, a political commentator, she gets to the real heart of the matter.
She tweeted yesterday, quote, random drag queens in public spaces pose exactly zero threat to children.
These people don't care about protecting children.
They care about protecting, quote, childhood innocence, ignorance romanticized, a bullshit fantasy made up by adults reflecting every adult prejudice.
Oh, well, there it is, right?
Childhood innocence, she says, is a fantasy.
It is romanticized.
Something that adults made up because we're prejudiced.
She's opposed to childhood innocence, even in theory.
She doesn't think that children are innocent or that they should be.
This is why she draws a false distinction between protecting children and protecting childhood innocence.
Well, they don't want to protect children.
They just want to protect childhood innocence.
Which is like saying to someone, well, you don't care about health, you only care about nutrition.
Yes, well, nutrition is an important aspect of health.
You can't have good health without good nutrition, just as you can't protect children without protecting their innocence.
Now, a child's innocence isn't the only thing we ought to protect.
We should protect their physical safety, too, of course, but you can't carve out their innocence, throw it on the trash heap, and then claim that you care about protecting children otherwise.
This hostility to childhood innocence is, most tragically of all, shared by an increasing number of parents themselves.
That's the elephant in the room.
The elephant that's watching the drag queen in the room.
In every one of these videos, all of those children have parents.
Parents who brought them to the event.
Parents who have dedicated themselves to the destruction of their own child's mind and soul.
Parents of this kind will sink to unimaginable depths in an effort to corrupt and destroy their own children.
In fact, one rising trend on TikTok right now are videos of parents crowdfunding
their children's castration and mutilation.
So here's just one.
This is a, I'm actually not exactly sure what this is to be honest,
but it's a parent of some kind who is soliciting funds from the internet
for this purpose, in order to do this to a child.
Watch.
So for those of you that don't know, my name is Lyric.
Today, making a video that isn't like the other content that I typically make.
Basically, I'm raising money to help fund my son's transition-related costs.
I'm sharing this with his permission.
Basically, we already have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria for him.
We have gotten his blood work done, and we need to start him on puberty blockers as soon as possible.
Now, I personally, I transitioned later, so I wasn't familiar with how puberty blockers worked.
Basically, my insurance doesn't cover this, which is wonderful, right?
the generic version of Lupron that we have a 22.5 milligram dose that is going to cost out of pocket
468 dollars per shot and each shot lasts three months so we need four of these
It's, what, close to $2,000.
Um, what, close to $2,000.
Um, I have already exhausted most of my funds.
I need help.
I want to raise money to help cover his transition-related costs, as it's very difficult to come up with that sort of money on short notice.
I know that I'm asking a lot, but I would do anything to make sure that he is able to continue his transition.
Oh, you're running out of funds, are you?
Well, good.
I hope you go bankrupt.
I wish bankruptcy upon you.
I wish poverty and bankruptcy upon you.
That's what I hope.
If that's the only thing that's going to protect your kid from what you want to do to your child.
We talk about parental rights, but I think we should probably be more specific.
Because this is also a claim, now this is a response.
By the left, when we talk about, you know, parents bringing their kids to drag shows and parents transitioning their kids, and the left now will, you'll often hear them say, well, I thought you cared about parental rights.
Well, I do.
But what do you have the right to do as a parent?
I mean, what are your parental rights exactly?
We would all agree that parents don't have the right to do anything they want with, to, or around their children.
I think we would all agree, at least in theory, with that.
So, what do we mean by parental rights?
What we mean, or should mean, is that parents have the right to care for their children, protect their children, and love and nurture them.
That's what you have the right to do.
And as always with rights, it would probably be more helpful and more clarifying to use a different R-word, responsibility.
You have a responsibility to do all of these things for your child.
And with any human right, on the flip side of the coin, there's always responsibility that we should be talking about.
And when it comes to parental rights, it's not even on the flip side of the coin.
It's the same thing.
Whenever you're talking about your parental rights, that is also your responsibility to your child.
God has given you this mission.
You've been entrusted with that task.
But if you won't do it, If you will, in fact, do the opposite, working to corrupt, pervert, and destroy the very child that you're called to protect, then you should lose all of your rights.
I mean, I talk about, I'm saying all of your rights.
Your parental rights you should lose, and every other right, and be locked in a prison cell until you die.
There are many parents who deserve that treatment.
This is the groomer's secret weapon.
He has many parents as allies.
Problem begins, as always, at home.
And that's the part of the story, I think, that we need to start really talking about.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
You know, if you've been listening to my show for a while, you know that I've been an activist against the lazy
grocery shoppers who don't put their grocery carts away.
Well, I have some unfortunate news.
You've probably heard in some of these other reads.
The grocery carts attacked me in my own car.
Again, I think we're pretending.
Unfortunately, when I was pulling out of my parking spot, a rogue grocery cart crashed into my car.
Totaling it and nearly killing me.
There are two lessons we can take away from this.
One, don't be lazy.
Put your shopping carts away so I don't have to suffer.
And two, you can solve an issue like mine quickly and without breaking the bank by just visiting rockauto.com.
They have the touch-up paint and pens that are easy to use and just as easy as a magic marker.
Rockauto.com is an online family-owned business that sells all the auto parts you could ever possibly need that are specific to your own vehicle.
Their prices are shockingly reasonable and their shipping is quick.
So no matter what's going on with your car, you can trust RockAuto.
Okay, so here's the story.
It is the story.
Rock Auto has a very user-friendly website and they make it easy for you to pick the right parts for your specific car.
You'll see photo specs and even installation tips so you can feel confident that you're choosing the correct parts
for your vehicle.
So what are you waiting for? Go to rockauto.com for your auto part needs today and write Walsh in their "How did you
hear about us?" box so they know that I'm the one that sent you. That's rockauto.com
to shop for your auto parts today.
Okay, so here's the the story. It is the story. It should be the biggest news story of the day, the week,
the month.
But if you go to... I just real quick just pulled up some of these mainstream media
sites just to take a look at it.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
CBS News, right up at the top of the homepage, no mention of it.
NBC News, top of the homepage, no mention of it.
CNN, no mention of it on the top of the homepage.
And you go down from there.
Of course, we're talking about the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Okay, so this is someone who attempted to assassinate a Supreme Court justice yesterday, and the major corporate media outlets today aren't even... It's like it didn't happen.
And we can't even say they moved on from it already because they just simply hardly acknowledged it at all, ever.
Here's the Daily Wire's report.
It says, a man allegedly caught lurking near U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home early Wednesday has been charged with attempted murder of a federal judge, the Department of Justice confirmed to the Daily Wire.
A criminal complaint was filed today against, charging Nicholas John Roski, age 26, for federal charges of attempted murder of a Supreme Court Justice.
He was arrested in a Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland early Wednesday.
Says that he traveled to Kavanaugh's home armed with weapons and burglary tools with the intent to kill the justice and prevent him from ruling on Second Amendment and abortion cases.
So yeah, that's one of the ironies here is that this maniac was gonna kill somebody with
a gun, was really concerned about gun control.
And he was worried that Brett Kavanaugh would prevent gun control legislation from, and
also he was worried about the abortion, about Roe v. Wade, protecting Roe v. Wade.
And he was willing to kill someone in order to do it.
He had, it says, an inventory search of the seized suitcase and backpack reveal a black
tactical chest rig and tactical knife, a Glock 17 pistol with two magazines and ammunition,
pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, a screwdriver, nail punch, crowbar, pistol light, duct tape,
hiking boots with padding on the outside of the soles, and other items.
So he was fully prepared to do this and was going to do it.
And he planned to kill himself after he did it.
So this is a murderous lunatic, fully capable of doing this, had all the tools he needed to carry out this crime, and was willing to give his own life in the process.
You would think a major, major story.
And although this does not need to be pointed out, and yet has already been pointed out, I will say it also, that if this was, I mean you can only imagine, if this was one of the liberal justices, if this was someone coming after Sotomayor or Kagan, or if Ruth Bader Ginsburg was still alive and on the court, And there was some crazed right-winger who showed up at their house or was on the way to one of their homes with all these weapons and this plan.
Can you imagine if it was a pro-lifer?
Reverse this around?
And a pro-lifer upset about an impending ruling in favor of abortion rights?
On the way to one of their homes to kidnap them and murder them?
It would be the only thing that the media talked about for the next, I don't know, two months?
And even after they moved on to something else, it would constantly be revisited?
Like, we would never ever move on from it as a society.
Just like with January 6th, it would be just like that.
And they would compare the event to 9-11 Pearl Harbor in terms of significance.
But in this case, they don't want to talk about it.
One of the reasons they don't want to talk about it is because they realize that this is in large part their fault.
The media and Democrats going out saying that the conservative justices are going to overturn Roe v. Wade, and in overturning Roe v. Wade, it's a clear and present danger to women.
They're going to enact a handmaid's tale scenario.
Women are going to be enslaved.
Well, when you say that to people who are already predisposed to be violent and crazy, you are inviting them to do exactly what this guy tried to do.
Let's go back and remember Chuck Schumer.
Chuck Schumer was just a few months ago, up in front of a crowd, and let's remember what he said.
I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.
You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
You will pay the price.
Now what you heard there is far more explicit than anything Donald Trump ever said to the protesters on January 6th.
Well, actually it goes the other way because Donald Trump was explicit in saying that this was going to be a peaceful demonstration.
But that You're gonna pay the price?
Now, there isn't even an innocent interpretation available for something like that.
Now, you could claim that Chuck Schumer, he didn't really mean that he wanted anyone to go kill Justice Kavanaugh.
But he also didn't, he didn't not want someone to go kill Justice Kavanaugh.
He certainly wasn't going out of his way to make sure that didn't happen.
But whatever his intentions were, you're going to pay the price if you arrive at this decision.
He's a justice.
At best, you're trying to put social and political pressure on a Supreme Court justice, intimidate them that way in order to change a potential ruling.
So one way or another, that's an open threat.
There should be Republicans right now in Congress You know, calling for Chuck Schumer to be brought up on charges of incitement.
Look what they're doing to Marjorie Taylor Greene, trying to prevent her from ever running for re-election.
She's never done anything close to that.
And if she had done that?
If Marjorie Taylor Greene had given a speech targeting liberal justices and saying, you'll pay the price for this!
And then a few months later, some crazed right-winger showed up at one of their homes with guns and duct tape.
She'd be in jail.
She would go to jail for that, Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Being prevented from ever running for office again, that would be the least of her problems.
Republicans need to actually start playing offense on this kind of thing.
There's no reason not to.
You'd have the public on your side.
This is totally inexcusable.
And even after all this happened, Even after someone tried to show up to kill Justice Kavanaugh, protesters still showed up at Kavanaugh's house yesterday.
I think we have the footage of that.
This is after all of this happened, and they still showed up.
Shut up, let's play that.
We say no choice!
But wait until it's no choice!
We say no choice!
But wait until it's no choice!
We say no choice!
Make some noise for our first worker, come on!
[cheering]
Keep your rosary!
Keep your rosary Off my ovaries!
And you see the cops there.
They've got Justice Kavanaugh's house surrounded, okay?
So they're protecting the house, but they're also just standing there.
Why don't you arrest these punks?
What they're doing is illegal.
This is an attempt to intimidate a Supreme Court justice after someone just tried to kill him.
This is an intimidation tactic, and it's not legal.
Not to mention, even if there's no Supreme Court justice, disturbing the peace... You're walking around a residential neighborhood with bullhorns and banging on drums?
If I went outside in my own neighborhood with a bullhorn and I was banging on drums, it wouldn't be long before the cops showed up and said, you can't do that here.
This is disturbing the peace at a minimum.
But they're allowed to basically do what they want.
And as far as I know, no Republicans are calling for charges against any of the Democrats who openly called for exactly this.
Including whoever leaked that opinion.
As far as I'm concerned, the leaker of the Supreme Court opinion should now be brought up, along with whatever other charges you can put on him, should now be brought up on attempted murder charges also because this was the reason for leaking the opinion.
It was throwing this out there so that, to prevent by whatever means, this opinion from going forward.
In spite of all this, MSNBC, I said that they kind of ignored this, but they did have, maybe that's not entirely fair, because they did yesterday, they were talking about the problem of violent extremists, domestic terrorism.
This is on the same day when a left-wing terrorist tried to kill Supreme Court justice, and so they're talking about the issue, and they are acknowledging it.
Let's listen.
Replacement theory has become political ideology.
Frank, if Mr. Whitfield's mother was killed by foreign terrorists, the Democrats and the Republicans on the committee would be promising him the moon.
What is, I mean, is it as obvious as it seems that domestic violent extremists are an important part of the voting coalition on the right?
I mean, what is the structural impediment to pardoning the homeland against domestic violent extremism?
Oh, right.
They're talking about the violent extremists on the right.
And she says, in fact, they're a voting bloc.
That's how numerous they are.
Which, again, if they're that numerous, I mean, there's a voting bloc, thousands, millions.
And yet it's just very odd that with one exception, every time we have seen mobs of violent people
acting out with political motivations, every single time with one exception,
they've been on the left.
Isn't that interesting?
Well, while this is going on, Joe Biden decided to go down to
California and visit with Jimmy Kimmel, because that's the priority here.
Again, a Supreme Court justice was attempted murder, but he's on Jimmy Kimmel.
And we'll play a couple of clips here.
Here he is talking about the communication problems that the White House... He's admitting, I think, that the White House has some communication problems, and even he himself has communication problems.
And then, this is very helpful, he actually demonstrated his own communication problems while talking about them.
So, watch.
So there's a lot of major things we've done, but what we haven't done is we haven't been able to communicate it in a way that is, um, let me say it another way.
Well, see, that's kind of perfect.
Yeah, we haven't been able to communicate it.
But look how the press has changed.
Look how the press has changed.
It has changed.
Oh, listen, I get it.
I know you get, you overstand it.
You don't just understand it, you overstand it.
But here's the deal.
One of the things is that it's very difficult now to have a, um...
Even with notable exceptions, even the really good reporters, they have to get a number of clicks on nightly news.
So instead of asking a question... Anyway, it's just everything gets sensationalized in ways that... But I'm convinced we can get through this.
We have to get through it.
And one of the things, look... I'm going to take a break, and then we'll talk a little bit more if you don't mind.
I don't blame you.
I'm sorry, we have some of those commercials.
We have some biracial commercials we need to show.
He didn't finish one of those sentences.
Do you notice that?
He started, so that was a collection of sentences that were started and then abandoned before he finished them.
That's his style of speaking now, is that he starts a sentence and then it trails off and he picks up a new thought, trails off, picks up a new thought.
And Jimmy Kimmel's sitting there trying his best to help him out.
I mean, the whole conversation really reminds me, it's very much kind of the tone and tenor of a grandson sitting in a nursing home talking to his senile grandfather.
That's exactly what's happening here.
And that's not even the worst clip.
I think the worst one is this.
Listen to this.
If you turn on the TV, look at the ads.
When's the last time you saw biracial couples on TV?
When's the last time you saw the way, I mean, people are selling products, they do ads to sell products.
And they sell products when people, they appeal to people.
This generation is gonna change everything.
We just got to make sure we don't give up.
There's an ability for us to do everything from increase the access to education, healthcare.
Look what we did in healthcare.
Yeah, you know it's really bad when, I mean, I can't even stand this guy, but I'm so embarrassed for him that I can't, it's hard for me to watch it anymore.
The secondhand embarrassment is so overwhelming that I can't even watch it.
And it's like we should be, I don't like him.
So the fact that he's embarrassing himself and I also think that he's a bad guy on top of everything else.
And as I've said before, the fact that he's going senile in front of the entire world,
that is also his fault because he was so obsessed with power that he just kept grasping for
it even as he knew that he was losing his mental and physical faculties.
And now he's embarrassing himself in front of the world, totally on him.
But it's still really hard to watch because it's so embarrassing.
Never mind the fact that he's got no sense of even what decade we're living in.
So he says, when's the last time you saw a biracial couple in an advertisement?
I don't know, when's the last time I saw a biracial couple in a TV ad?
Well, the last time I saw a TV ad was the last time I saw that, because like 95... A better question is, when's the last time you saw a straight white couple in a TV commercial?
It's pretty rare these days.
That's what jumps out at you.
Every once in a while you see it and you're like, wow, I didn't know this was still happening.
So, I don't know, 95% of TV couples are at least biracial.
The last clip before that, he talks about the nightly news and he says that the anchors, they need clicks on the nightly news.
He's almost there, the click thing, but he's kind of combining that with the nightly news.
It is embarrassing and it's long since gotten to the point where it's really not funny anymore because it never actually was all that funny, even if you feel like all you could do is laugh at times.
This person is in charge of the country, supposedly anyway.
And everyone knows that he's lost his mind.
Everyone, including all of our enemies across the world.
Alright, here's someone else who's long since lost her mind.
Joy Behar had some thoughts about gun laws on The View.
And I thought this was pretty great.
And it was an applause line.
The audience loved it, but listen to this.
Most AR-15 owners are former military, 35 plus and married.
Let me say one more thing.
So that's all I'm saying is that they're not just crazy people.
Here's the thing.
Once black people get guns in this country, the gun laws will change.
Trust me.
All the train seals clapping for that.
Once black people get guns in this country, I'll tell you what.
You can do that with anything.
Hey, once black people have cars in this country, those Republicans, they're going to want to outlaw cars.
Once black people are eating pancakes in this country, you watch, right-wingers, they're gonna shut down all the IHOPs, once the black people have the pancakes.
Once black people are wearing shoes in this country, they're gonna shut down Foot Locker, the right-wingers.
What in the world is she talking about?
I kind of want to see the rest of that clip because there are two black women on the stage there.
And did they, well, I don't need to see it to know.
I'm sure they didn't correct her on that point.
And it's supposed to be, that's supposed to be something in defense of black people.
But of course, once again, it's just insulting and patronizing and demeaning.
Yeah.
Punchline here, in case you didn't know, is that black people do have guns in this country, and any black person in this country who does not have a gun, that's not because there's any law preventing them from doing so.
At least there's not any law preventing them, based on race, from doing so.
Alright, I want to play this for you.
So Redskins defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio, and I am still calling them the Redskins, I decided I'm going to deadname this team.
So Redskins defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio tweeted this week pointing out the inconsistency between how the BLM riots were covered and how they were handled versus the January 6th riots.
So you know that, of course, that's going to provoke a lot of backlash and outrage.
Everything that you expect came from that.
And he addressed the controversy during a press conference.
And I was kind of, when I knew the setup for this, and then I saw the clip, and I saw the headline that he was addressing the controversy, I was expecting what we always get, which is the backpedal, the apology.
And I'm very pleased to find out that's not exactly what happened.
Listen.
Want to talk about it?
I'd talk about it with anybody.
Yeah, no problem.
At any time.
But they're not.
I'm just expressing myself.
And I think we all, as Americans, have the right to express ourselves.
Especially if you're being respectful.
I'm being respectful.
I just asked a simple question.
Really, did I?
Let's get right down to it.
What did I ask?
A simple question.
Why are we not Looking into those things.
We're going to talk about it.
Why are we not looking into those things?
Because it's kind of hard for me to say I can realistically look at it.
I see the images on TV.
People's livelihoods are being destroyed.
Businesses are being burned down.
No problem.
And then we have a dust up at the Capitol.
Well, there's nothing burned down.
And we're not going to talk about it.
We're going to make that a major deal.
I just think It had two standards.
And if we apply the same standard, and we're going to be reasonable with each other, let's have a discussion.
That's all it was.
Let's have a discussion.
We're Americans.
Let's talk it through.
I'm for us, you know, having a great opportunity to have a fulfilled life.
Like I said, every which way I can, when I'm here, it's about love and respect.
Dammit.
I wanted for once to give somebody some credit because he said something and the sports media is offended by it.
Media is offended by it.
How dare you say that?
Compare BLM to January 6th, which I agree, by the way, that you can't really compare the BLM riots to January 6th, only because the BLM riots were a thousand times worse by every measure.
Death toll, damage.
And it's easy for the death toll to be worse, because there was no death toll from January 6th, except for Ashley Babbitt, who was killed by a Capitol Police officer.
But he says this, and then you heard him there.
That's when you expect to get the apology.
Instead, he kind of doubles down.
Great.
And I want to finally give someone credit for not apologizing, and then while that clip is playing, I hadn't done this before, I probably should have, and I looked it up, and he did apologize after that, so...
I thought we finally had someone.
So he tweeted shortly after that clip went viral.
He tweeted this.
I made comments earlier today in referencing the attack that took place on the United States Capitol on January 6th.
Referencing that situation as a dust-up was irresponsible and negligent, and I am sorry.
I stand by my comments condemning violence in communities across the country.
I say that while also expressing my support as an American citizen for peaceful protests in our country.
I have fully supported all peaceful protests in America.
I love, respect, and support all my fellow coaches, players, and staff that I work with,
and respect their views and opinions.
I don't know why I'm even disappointed, but you just hope, like, one of these times, just
one person, I'm just waiting for one person to have the cancel mob coming after them and
to say, "I'm not going to apologize."
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Even if, even if I was wrong with what I said, I'm still not, and he wasn't wrong.
But even if you were, you still don't apologize, because these people don't deserve it.
They don't deserve your apology.
They weren't hurt by anything you said.
I don't know how many times I have to explain this.
Apologies are given by someone who has hurt another person, and they are given to the person who was hurt.
Okay?
If you've done something, and nobody was hurt, Then, good news.
You don't owe anybody an apology.
You're off the hook.
You didn't do anything wrong.
If you did somehow hurt another person, then you find that person and you privately apologize to them.
But this public apology ritual does nothing but just encourage and fuel this mob, this pitchfork mob, Of phonies and losers who are just looking for a reason to pretend to be offended by things.
And you notice that especially in sports and in football, it's like the worst thing, the greatest offense that somebody in the NFL can commit is to say something, is to say, is to reveal that they have a similar view as the majority of the fans.
Like the majority of the NFL fans would probably agree with Jack Del Rio about that.
But the media says if you're in the NFL that you cannot do that.
You can't agree with most of your fans.
You can't say... The worst thing you could do is to say something that your fans agree with.
That's the worst offense.
Damn it, Jack.
Well, maybe the next one.
I'll keep hoping.
Okay, one other quick thing here.
This is from Yahoo.
It says, a proposal that took place at Disneyland Paris has blown up on Reddit, and not in a good way.
Reddit user WasGitLon initially posted the proposal video in the AmatotalPieceofS forum and claimed to be friends with the man who was proposing.
And he captioned the clip, POS destroyed my best friend's moment.
He asked for permission beforehand.
So, okay, so in this video, apparently they're at Disneyland Paris.
It's this couple, and the man wants to propose to the woman, and they're standing in this spot where apparently people propose all the time with the little fake castle in the background.
Well, it's a big fake castle, but it is a fake castle.
They're standing in the same spot, and this is, and the article goes on to explain that That I guess this is one of the top ten proposal sites in the world.
People go here all the time to get the Instagram proposals.
But you're not supposed to stand there, apparently.
So in the middle of the proposal, the Disneyland employee rushes in and takes the ring and moves them to another spot.
Let's play the video.
I gotta say I kind of I'm not a defender of Disney by any means whatsoever, but
I'm kind of on the Disney police side on this one I sort of am.
And I'll tell you why.
The only reason is because it's a proposal So it's hopefully a once-in-a-lifetime thing for a lot of people that ends up not being once-in-a-lifetime, but hopefully it should be.
And so why are you going?
Why would you want to go to the place where a billion other people have done the proposal?
It's a top 10 proposal site.
So why do you want to propose in the most cliche way imaginable?
So that you can have the same Instagram shot that 50 million people also have.
So, for that reason alone, I think they did them a favor.
How about redo the proposal somewhere else?
If you feel like you need to make a thing out of it, do something unique and interesting.
Disneyland, of all places?
A corporate theme park?
Is where you want to start this journey with the love of your life?
That's the real outrage here, in my opinion.
Let's get now to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Val says, Matt was unnecessarily rude to the WNBA players, who by the way had nothing to do with these shenanigans.
I'm usually a fan of you, Matt, but this was low, unconvincing, and part of the reason people are deterred from the right, because we keep making unnecessarily hateful comments about historically marginalized people.
I'm not trying to cancel you for this or anything, I just hope you see where I'm coming from.
Well, I don't, Val, and I think that's very unfair to me.
Honestly, I'm shocked that you would accuse me of being rude to WNBA players.
I would never... I believe in the Golden Rule, okay?
I would never... I'm not gonna dunk on WNBA players because I know they would never dunk on me.
Because they can't.
Because they can't touch the rim.
So... I didn't mean to use the video of the protest at the game as an excuse to insult the WNBA.
Honestly, I'm just impressed that they actually record the games at all.
I figured they would just have, like, a stenographer or maybe a courtroom sketch artist drawing a picture every time somebody makes a layup, so you only gotta draw, like, two or three pictures in a game.
I didn't mean any disrespect, but I really didn't.
Just to clarify.
Um, let's see.
Sarah says, I watched What Is Woman three times within the span of two days and I'm going to watch it again tonight.
The obsession over watching morons spew their nonsense is real and Matt's poker face is pure gold that never gets old.
Well, that's, that's exactly, that's how this should be done.
You don't need to watch it once.
Watch it multiple times.
Tell your friends about it.
Go to whatiswoman.com.
Um.
LR23 says, Matt, how do you respond to the argument that if children don't belong at drag shows, they also don't belong at places like Hooters?
How do I respond?
Yeah, I've seen this, if you can even call it an argument.
It's not an argument, it's a deflection, which is not the same thing as an argument.
But how do I respond to that?
Well, first of all, who... I guess my first response is, okay.
Yeah, I'm not bringing my kids to Hooters.
So, okay, yeah, I agree.
I think we could probably just establish that.
No, you probably shouldn't be bringing young kids to Hooters.
Fine.
Cool.
Now that we've agreed on that, let's get back to talking about the drag shows, because the reason we got to talk about that is that we don't agree on it.
Also, as far as I know, there's not any big societal push to get kids into Hooters.
I know that sometimes kids are brought into Hooters, but it's not a thing, okay?
There's not a great effort to do that.
And then my third response is that actually it's not even the same kind of thing.
I think it's weird to bring young kids into Hooters.
It's the same kind of response, like, why even do that?
If you want to go to a chain restaurant with bad food, there are many of them available to you.
Why bring the kids there?
So, agreed on that.
I'm not bringing my kids to Hooters.
But it's not the same.
There's not a moral equivalence there.
The drag show for kids is definitely worse.
Hooters are not appropriate for kids.
Drag show, a lot more inappropriate.
A lot more grotesque, disordered.
Much more overtly sexual.
All those things.
So it is a lot worse.
That's the other.
So there are my three responses that you get for that.
Let's see.
Roger says, Matt, really given the WNBA the business, of course they could use it.
Sir, that's not funny.
I've just said we're not making jokes about the WNBA on this show.
We don't do that here.
Roger, you're banned from the show.
That is outrageous, sir.
Theresa says, Matt, you're getting close to a million subscribers.
Better start practicing the dance.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Practicing dance, what do you mean?
Nate says, the funniest way Matt could die is to get hit by a meteorite while he's doing a plug for Epic Will.
I actually, and I think I've said this before, I think it'd be a great honor to die by a meteorite.
That's my number one preferred death if I get to choose, you know, if I was able to choose from a menu of options of what's ultimately going to take me out.
I think a meteor would be pretty good, especially as a big fan of space as I am.
It'd be a great honor to have something.
I mean, think about that.
You've got a meteorite that's been traveling Billions of miles, like to this destination for this rendezvous with you and your head?
I think I'd actually be okay with that.
And let's see.
I think there was one other here.
Shelly says, Matt, I read the interview in the UK magazine.
I thought the interviewer made a good point.
These feminists are complaining about not being included in your film, but have they included you in anything?
No, they haven't.
That was a good point.
I mentioned I did an interview In a magazine in the UK and some of the interview was about this debate in the UK among British feminists about the film and about me and they feel that they've been somehow marginalized because they weren't included in the film and that is one of many responses to that.
There were no feminists and haven't been any at any point that are knocking on my door trying to include me in any projects.
And also just the The gumption, the narcissism to get offended that you're not in a movie that someone in a different country who you don't know and don't even like made?
That is a sense of entitlement that is beyond anything I can even comprehend.
It would never occur to me, it would never occur to me to watch a movie or a documentary that somebody else made and I'm sitting there watching it thinking, why am I not in this?
What?
Why should you be in it?
I mean, why should you specifically?
And also, in our film, What Is A Woman, if you're someone who's been in this fight against gender ideology madness, and so you think you should have been in the movie, who in the movie should have been taken out to make room for you?
It's a 90-minute film.
And we use every minute of that 90 minutes.
It actually goes a little bit over 90 minutes.
So who should be taken out to make room for you?
Because I think that every interview we did helped to tell the story, and each interview was powerful in its own way.
Oftentimes powerful in ways that the interviewee didn't intend.
So who are we taking out?
That's the other question.
You let me know that, feminists, and then, you know, maybe I'll go back and we could just reshoot the entire movie for you.
You tell me what movie I should have made, and I'll just make it at your behest.
Sure.
What is a Woman is a huge success, and we really thank you for that.
This week, the film became the number one most popular movie at home on Rotten Tomatoes, which is just really mind-boggling, with over 2,500 ratings and an audience score of 97%.
This is a must-see film that everybody's talking about, from National Review to a lot of conservative influencers like Zuby.
They're talking about how important the film is and why people have to watch it.
We're changing the gender ideology conversation and fighting back in the culture.
Many of the people who hate the film, despite likely not having actually seen it, still are not able to offer any definition of what a woman is or refute any of the absurdity that the film points out.
They simply have no meaningful response because we're winning.
But without your support, none of this would be possible.
So from all of us at The Daily Wire, thank you for that.
Go to whatiswoman.com to become a member and watch the film today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today, for our daily cancellation, we will respond to a video from a YouTuber named Professor Dave of the channel Professor Dave Explains, where, presumably, Professor Dave explains things.
The channel has an impressive 2 million subscribers, and this video was sent to me by several people promising that it contains a formidable argument against my position on gender ideology.
One person, in fact, says that Professor Dave debunks my movie, What Is A Woman?
And I'm quite interested to see that, so let's go through this together.
Everybody seems to be furious about trans people.
Half of us are furious that they exist, and the other half are furious about what the other half is saying.
I would like to jump in and see if I can clear up some of the ways that people are talking past each other.
Now, it's no secret that I'm a bit on the liberal side, but rest assured, the left is not going to get away scot-free on this one.
They're missing the mark on a few key points.
But as tends to be the case, it's bigots on the right who are the main problem, so let's start there.
We're off to a rough start.
Putting aside Dave's smug know-it-all tone and demeanor, something that seems to be a matter of instinct for people like him, so I'm not going to hold it against him, the real problem is that in the very first sentence, he's already wildly and intentionally mischaracterizing his opponents.
In 30 seconds, he gives us a straw man and an ad hominem.
He's doing that in the first 30 seconds.
He's beginning this way.
Which signals that he doesn't have much to offer beyond this point.
Because if he actually planned on making a compelling argument, he wouldn't come out of the gate breezily dismissing millions of people as bigots.
Sorry, not millions.
Billions.
Because anybody who has a problem with basic concepts of gender ideology is a bigot, he says.
Which means that almost everybody in the world, and who has ever existed in the world, is a bigot.
Professor Dave begins the proceedings with that declaration.
He also lies about the nature of the opposing argument, and he does it in the laziest and frankly dumbest way imaginable.
He says that the people on the other side are furious that trans people exist.
Now, in reality, as he's well aware, we're not furious that trans people exist, but rather, we deny the underlying premise of gender ideology.
If we're furious about anything, it's that this ideology is being imposed on society, and especially on children, and it's causing great harm in the process.
By saying that we're furious that trans people exist, he gets to dismiss all of us as a bunch of angry, spittle-flecked rage clowns, when he is also quite well aware that, when it comes to this subject, nearly all of the angry, spittle-flecked rage clowns Or on the other side of the discussion.
Take, for example, the people threatening to kill me and accusing me of genocide for making a documentary.
A documentary where I am only visibly angry one time, briefly, when addressing a school board that covered up the rape of a student, so perhaps you'll excuse my emotions in that case.
But the other point of this mischaracterization is to pretend that we're angry at trans people personally, rather than critical of the claims made by trans activists.
Overall, it's a mess and we're only 30 seconds in.
Let's continue.
The primary issue is people who deny transgenderism.
These are the people who spew the tired Fox News talking points.
Liberals say there are 89 genders and anyone can identify as a hamster, that sort of thing.
It's a deliberate caricature of reality peddled by all the angry conservative dudes popping up in my feed lately who claim that nobody can define a woman.
Let's all take a moment to acknowledge the problems that go along with the ambiguity of language.
Sex and gender are different words that refer to different things.
If you did not know that, now you do.
So we have another common rhetorical tactic from the left and honestly I'm quite disappointed to hear common rhetorical tactics when I was promised an utter destruction of my worldview and I was looking forward to it.
Professor Dave says it's a tired Fox News talking point that there are a lot of genders.
But that's not Fox's talking point.
That's his talking point.
This is indeed the official position of the gender ideologue.
They may disagree on how many genders, but they all agree that there are a lot more than two.
Some say there are infinite numbers.
Facebook says there are 58.
If this sounds insane, that's not Fox's fault.
As for sex and gender being two different things, I totally agree.
Sex refers to biology, while gender is a linguistic term that refers to words, but was co-opted by a pedophile sexologist named John Money and applied to people in a vague and ambiguous way.
Dave never mentions that point.
He doesn't seem to know where his own ideas came from, or else he doesn't want you to know.
Ignorant or deceptive, you decide.
From here, Professor Day provides a basically correct definition of sex with a long digression into intersexuality, and then gets around to talking about gender.
Let's listen to that.
Gender is a different phenomenon.
It is still biological, but it is a neurochemical construct.
This means that ultimately it is still genetic in basis, but it absolutely is not determined merely by the sex chromosomes.
It is tremendously more complicated, and researchers are still working to understand the biological basis of gender identity.
Human psychology is complex.
People need to deal with that.
Thoughts and feelings are ultimately chemical phenomena.
We all have a neurochemical profile that guides how we think and feel, and part of that is gender identity.
The reason that we are just now becoming equipped to differentiate between the two phenomena
is that in the vast majority of humans, somewhere between 99 and 99.9% of all people,
gender identity aligns with biological sex.
So gender identity has a neurochemical basis because it's a feeling and feelings can be traced
back to brain activity.
Okay, sure.
I'll buy that.
The question is whether those feelings reflect reality.
That's the question.
An anorexic person feels that she's overweight.
The feeling is a biological phenomenon in the sense that it's happening in her brain in the same sense that a man feels like a woman, but we understand in her case that the feelings are disordered, incorrect, wrong, delusional, and so we work to treat her brain, her feelings, to more accurately align them with reality.
We don't say that the anorexic is trans-obese, and we don't call actually obese people cis-obese.
We understand that there is physical reality, and then feelings, and sometimes feelings are out of step with reality, and when that's the case, we usually understand that the feelings are the issue, they are the problem to be solved, and so we try to solve them.
Will Professor Dave address that objection in this video?
Spoiler, no he won't.
In fact, he won't honestly engage with literally any objection raised by the opponents of his ideology at all.
Won't even try.
Common theme with these people, but let's keep listening anyway.
The unfortunate linguistic coincidence is that we use terms like man and woman, or male and female, in describing both of these phenomena.
That is where the confusion arises, when people insist that one term must encapsulate both phenomena at once.
So when someone asks, what is a woman, expecting to get a very simple answer that children can understand, they are sorely mistaken.
The answer requires a discussion of genetics and neurochemistry.
Well, I'm sorry you find it offensive, Dave, but yes, I do deny the concept of gender as it was conceived by John Money.
You accept that concept as gospel.
You're offended that anybody disagrees with it.
That's your problem.
Meanwhile, you say that the definition of the word woman is complicated, but please note that it's complicated is not a definition.
See, you still haven't defined it.
I never insisted on a simple definition.
I simply insist on a definition, any kind of definition, some sort of meaning.
You can give me a complicated one.
That's fine.
Go ahead.
Try me.
Give me a complicated definition.
I'm perfectly fine with that.
But you must have some definition, whereas you provide none at all.
See, this is a major problem for you, Dave, and let me try to explain why.
It's a problem because, and listen closely, You are using the word.
Do you see why that's an issue?
You say the word woman is complicated and apparently ambiguous and hard to understand, yet you use it.
You refer to women.
You talk about women.
I bet you'd even say that you believe in women's rights.
Would you say that?
I bet you would.
This must mean that you have some solid, comprehensible idea of what a woman is, yet you never explain that idea.
That's a very big problem for you, Dave.
You're using a word that you cannot or will not define, which means either that you're hopelessly confused and we should dismiss you and your arguments for that reason, or you're evasive and disingenuous and we should dismiss you and your arguments for that reason.
Either way, you and your arguments are in really bad shape right now.
Let's continue.
The acceptance for suppressed sexual orientations came first, because around 10% of people are gay, whereas a much smaller percentage of people are trans.
But this is the natural progression of societal evolution.
Nearly every binary has been shown to actually be a spectrum, and it doesn't matter how uncomfortable it makes conservative people.
Wait, what?
Nearly every binary is a spectrum?
Like what?
No, I'm not uncomfortable with that.
I just think it's nonsense.
It's just...
I mean, in a certain way, I'm uncomfortable around people saying stupid things, but that's all we mean by that.
What are the binaries that turned out to be spectrums?
Don't say gender, because that's begging the question.
I don't agree with John Money's concept of gender at all.
It's not that I think gender is a binary.
It's that I think it's a totally useless and incoherent concept that should be put back into the world of linguistics and grammar where it belongs.
As for sex, if that's not a binary, then what is it?
There are males and females.
There are those who are of the nature to become pregnant, and those who are of the nature to impregnate.
There's no third sex, it's a binary.
So, where is the spectrum that everyone thought was a binary?
Can you give one example?
As for the claim that 10% of people are gay, where did you come up with that?
Where'd you get that from?
Well, I'll tell you where you got it from.
You got that from Alfred Kinsey, who made that claim in his book, Sexual Behavior of the Human Male, which is the same book that contains a chart documenting the orgasms of infants.
He arrives at his arguments and his figures about human sexuality by interviewing sex offenders and prison inmates and lying and pretending that he surveyed a cross-section of the population, but he didn't.
So, that's where you're getting your information, Professor.
Just thought you might like to know that.
Let's watch a little bit more.
Now, as promised, with the indictment of conservatives complete, I turn to liberals and the missteps they are enacting that are preventing resolution.
Number one, please stop saying things like gender is a social construct.
No, it is not.
It is a biological construct.
Society can't turn you trans any more than it can turn you gay.
Gender is determined biologically.
His indictment of conservatives was complete without ever approaching the vicinity of any one of our actual arguments, and then he turns to criticize liberals to prove how fair and objective he is by slamming them for not being liberal enough.
He also says that society can't turn you trans, totally ignoring the fact that in our society currently, and only in our society, only in the West, there has been a many-fold increase in trans identification.
If that's not society turning people trans, what is it, Dave?
Now, I don't know what you'd say to that, because as always, and like literally every other gender ideologue I've ever spoken to, and I guarantee I've spoken personally to many more people on your side than you've spoken to on my side, but like all of them, you don't attempt to grapple with any of the logical inconsistencies of your position.
But I ask again anyway, if society can't turn you trans, why are we experiencing an unprecedented, skyrocketing rise in trans identifications?
If you say that there have always been this many trans people, but they were all in the closet, you'll then have to explain why there was never, ever, at any point, ever, a mass epidemic of people committing suicide because they were not affirmed in their gender identity.
After all, a staple doctrine on the left is that lack of affirmation is dangerous because it causes suicide.
Well, then why was that never happening back when there were millions and millions of supposed unaffirmed trans people?
Indeed, why is the suicide epidemic happening now when trans people are so affirmed?
Here's my answer.
Gender ideology is a modern Western social construct that didn't exist until it was invented by psychoanalytical quacks and then parroted mindlessly by people like you.
Further, while pretending that it affirms and nurtures people, it actually leads them into self-destruction and despair.
The evidence bears that out.
The evidence is entirely on my side, in fact, and not at all on your side, because on this topic you are wrong about nearly everything, and your underlying claims are so nonsensical and incoherent that you can't begin to explain them or defend them, and that's why you don't even try.
Which is a long way of saying, Professor Dave, that you are, today, cancelled.
That'll do it for us.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe.
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 Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, Our associate producer is McKenna Waters.
The show is edited by Robbie Dantzler.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, and hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
John Bickley here, Daily Wire editor-in-chief.
Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire, where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
