Ep. 987 - The Tran-Age Community Now Demands Acceptance
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the trans-age adult baby community cries out for acceptance. On what basis can our culture deny them? Also, big fat booty gate takes more twists and turns. It has been revealed that AOC called the cops five times on the comedian who commented on her Latinx booty. Plus, confidence in the education system has fallen to a historic low, which is good news. Parents throw a gender reveal party for their eight year old. In our Daily Cancellation, Gwen Stefani is the latest white chick to offend the cultural appropriation police.
Become a DailyWire+ member today to watch my documentary “What Is A Woman?”, Jordan Peterson’s new series “Dragons, Monsters, and Men” and access the entire DailyWire+ content catalog: https://utm.io/ueIZt
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Beam is one of the world's most innovative functional wellness brands, with unique products for everything from Sleep to Focus. LIMITED TIME OFFER: Up to 35% OFF at beamorganics.com/WALSH
Epic Will is partnering with the DW to protect our staff and their families. Use Promo Code 'WALSH' at EpicWill.com for 10% off your will.
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, the trans age adult baby community cries out for acceptance.
On what basis can our culture deny them?
Also, big fat booty gate takes more twists and turns.
It's been revealed that AOC called the cops five times on the comedian who commented on her latinx booty.
Plus, confidence in the education system has fallen to a historic low, which is good news.
And parents throw a gender reveal party for their eight-year-old child.
Finally, in our daily cancellation, Gwen Stefani is the latest white chick to offend the cultural appropriation police.
We'll talk about all that and more today.
on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Did you know that poor sleep can cause weight gain, mood issues, poor mental health, and lower productivity?
And that some reports say sleeping less than 6-7 hours per night is linked to reduce white blood cell count.
White blood cells protect our body against illness and disease, fighting viruses, bacteria, and more.
Not many people realize this, but having a consistent nighttime routine is extremely important.
That's why a better tomorrow starts tonight.
That's why you need to try Beam Dream.
Beam is one of the world's most innovative functional wellness brands with unique products for everything from sleep to focus.
And today, my listeners get a special discount available for Beam's sleep product, Dream Powder.
It's their best-selling hot cocoa.
98% of people surveyed fall sleep faster when taking Beam Dream, and 99% of people experienced better quality sleep as well.
Just mix Beam Dream into hot water or milk, stir, and enjoy before bedtime.
Also, Beam just launched a brand new delicious new summer flavor of Dream Powder, which is Sea Salt Caramel.
Sea Salt Caramel Dream Powder tastes just like the caramel drizzle on your summer ice cream cone, but with only 15 calories, and you get better sleep in the bargain.
Better sleep has never tasted better.
Don't love it?
Get your money back, guaranteed.
But I think you will love it.
I know I did.
For a limited time, get up to 35% off when you go to beamorganics.com slash Walsh and use code Walsh at checkout.
That's B-E-A-M organics.com slash Walsh.
And use code Walsh for up to 35% off.
Always on top of the important news, the New York Post has a report this week about 28-year-old cybersecurity analyst Lucy who, according to the headline, identifies as a proud adult baby who wears diapers.
Though Lucy cautions that her proclivity is certainly not a sex fetish.
It's not that at all, she says.
Sure it isn't, Lucy, whatever you say.
Now this article, on the one hand, falls squarely into the sideshow circus category in accordance with a long tradition stretching back centuries of traveling freak shows where onlookers are invited to come and gawk at all the weirdos.
These shows have taken on different forms over the years, and these days they take the form of journalism.
But, on the other hand, there are actually some important lessons to be gleaned from Lucy's story, if you can believe it.
We are living inside of a perpetual freak show.
That's our cultural identity, really.
And so, we can learn something about our own situation from cases like this, I think.
So, the New York Post tells us, quote, A 28-year-old cybersecurity analyst has revealed she loves wearing diapers and dressing up as an infant and says there's no shame in her unusual interest.
Lucy has not disclosed her surname, but is a proud member of the adult baby diaper lover community and frequently posts photos of herself wearing the disposable underwear.
Quote, I didn't find out about adult babies and that they existed until I was a teenager and I did some Google searching of my own.
She told Media Drum World, Until then, it never occurred to me that there would be more people like me.
It's not about kink, it's about comfort, she defiantly tells haters who label her a sick fetishist.
Lucy holds down a regular white-collar job and has a normal love life, but cruel trolls have told her that her former boyfriends must be pedophiles if they're dating a woman who wears diapers and sucks on pacifiers.
Well, they might not be pedophiles legally, Might not be.
Emphasis on might.
But one might argue that they are pedophiles in spirit, at the very least.
We learn more. "Lucy says her interest in wearing diapers began after her baby sister was born.
I was eight or nine years old when I first got these feelings and it was very confusing," she
explained. "The blonde started stealing her sister's diapers and wearing them for comfort,
although she rarely relieved herself in them, we are assured. Lucy has found support from others
in the ADDL community and shares snaps of herself dressed as a baby on Instagram."
Now, if you're paying close attention, and I wouldn't blame you if you weren't, this may all
sound eerily familiar.
And I don't just mean familiar in the sense that there are many adult babies in America today, even if most of them don't identify as such.
I mean familiar in that Lucy sounds exactly like other communities of people who identify as something other than what they are.
Just like the gender identity brigade, she says that she discovered this truth about herself when she was a child.
She says that living this way makes her feel more at home and at peace with herself.
She denies that it's a sexual fetish, just as, um...
Men who wear women's clothes deny that it's a fetish, even though in both cases it has the appearance and all the hallmarks of a sexual fetish.
She even discovered her own community with its own acronyms, letters that have not been accepted under the LGBT umbrella yet, but will be soon enough, we can be sure.
In fact, the trans age community has a greater claim to validity and acceptance than the transgender community.
Age, after all, does actually change over time.
It is fluid in that way.
And unlike a man who says he's a woman, an adult who says that they feel like a child can speak with some measure of authority on the matter because they were once a child and therefore know what it's like to be a child because they were once.
Now, this doesn't mean that trans-ageism is actually valid, of course.
It's still totally deranged, and the only community that such people should share should be found inside of a mental hospital.
But the point is simply that we as a culture have already accepted and tolerated and legitimized self-identifications even more baseless, outlandish, and incoherent than this.
The adult baby is downright tame and traditional compared to the life choices we already celebrate and throw parades for.
That's why these various other communities of fetishists in denial are not really the sideshow circus that we want them to be.
The trans-age people, the trans-species people, furries, the so-called neo-pronoun users, people who identify as clouds and trees and space aliens and so on, along with the polyamorous throuples and the objectum-sexuals who wish to be bonded in wedded bliss with buildings and bridges and all that, and the whole bizarre assortment of countless other categories of weirdos and mutants These are not fringe aberrations, but rather they are a gathering flood pressing against a dam that cannot hold.
As a society, we no longer have the language or the basis for denying the validity of any alternative lifestyle, no matter how perverse it is.
All of these communities, to include most especially the pedophiles who've already helpfully been rebranded as minor attracted persons, maps, quote-unquote, All of them can stake their claim to acceptance using all of the same arguments and all the same buzzwords and catchphrases that have already won the day, culturally speaking.
This is the point of the slippery slope argument, which is fallaciously written off as a fallacy by people who would prefer for us to be surprised by what comes next.
They don't want us to predict it.
But in fact, the slippery slope is not really a prediction or a guess or a theory, even less is it a prophecy.
It's actually just an observation about things that are happening right now.
We observe that the justifications offered on behalf of one thing could just as easily be applied to these dozens of other things that already exist.
And so, if we accept the first thing then, we've already accepted all of those other things, whether we meant to or not.
That's the slippery slope.
One other point about this, as always, you know, it'd be impossible to overstate the effect of the internet and social media here.
Because a question that often comes up and that I get asked a lot is, you know, whether I think that all of these perversions which have been normalized in our culture, did they exist in the past?
But most people simply never heard about them?
Or have we invented them in modern times?
I think the answer to that is yes and no.
The human mind, since the fall of man, has been a dark and twisted place.
That was as much the case a hundred years ago and a thousand years ago as it is today.
The difference is that prior to the internet and modern media, a person with one of these sorts of proclivities would have nowhere safe to go to explore it anonymously and without fear of public shame.
They would then have no choice but to suppress it, to try to overcome it, to try to live a life in spite of it, ignore it, whatever it is.
And often they were successful.
Not always, but often.
But today, a person can plumb the depths of their own psyche.
Identify all the weirdest and most objectionable aspects of themselves, and after a quick Google search, as we heard from Lucy there, find communities of other people who share this exact same kind of psychological disturbance.
And then they can then feed and foster what people in the past would have suppressed, and they could do it with the cloak of anonymity until they're ready to announce themselves to the world.
And then, when that time comes, They know that they'll be accepted and celebrated just so long as they show pride.
They have to show pride in it.
Because the only thing they can do wrong, where this proclivity is concerned, or where any lifestyle, quote-unquote, lifestyle choice is concerned, is to publicly betray any shame or embarrassment about it.
That's the one thing you can't do.
Because these days, in our culture, shame is really the only sin.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Well, if you like skydiving, that's great.
But make sure you get your will finalized and then go skydiving.
It's just a fact.
100% of people who skydive will die.
And in fact, it's even worse than that.
100% of people who do anything will die.
We're all going to die.
You don't have to skydive.
You don't have to do, you know, extremely risky things on purpose to die.
You're just, you're going to die.
We're all going to die any moment.
Your death is waiting and lurking around the corner and it will devour you.
As you absolve into nothingness.
So, whether you're going out with a bang or skydiving or you're gonna live another hundred years, a will isn't about you.
It's about your loved ones.
It's about the really hard decisions they need to make if something happens to you.
Don't make your family make hard decisions when all they should be focused on is grieving.
Instead, give them all the answers like life support or pull the plug, buried or cremated, whatever it is.
You need to have all that ready to go.
But here's the deal.
The judge that might take over is not going to know who your best friend is or who you trust to raise your kids.
The fact is, a will is something that can take as little as five minutes to set up, and if you don't do it, you're acting selfishly.
So go to epicwill.com, use promo code WALSH, and I'll even save you 10% while you do it.
So I mean, come on, you can literally have a comprehensive will starting at $119, and if you don't have a will, you're gift-wrapping money to the state by letting the state use its will It's own will to decide everything for you.
Don't do that.
Don't trust the state to make any decision for your family.
Go to epicwill.com, use promo code Walsh, and just get it done.
All right, so still enjoying time out here on the lake, in my off hours at least, and I posted this picture yesterday.
This is me indoctrinating my two-year-old, teaching her how to fish.
She knows how to fish now.
She knows how to bait a hook with a worm.
I taught her that, though she kept wanting to name all of the worms before we stabbed them and fed them to fish, which was a little bit awkward and uncomfortable.
And of course, I posted this picture, which is always a mistake, to Twitter.
It's the internet.
I had a bunch of dorks responding.
Actually, did you know she's holding the reel upside down?
Yeah, I did know that.
She's two.
That's how she wanted to hold it, one step at a time.
All these other people making various critiques and observations.
Why is she wearing a LifeVest?
The LifeVest needs to be tighter.
She's not wearing it right.
And then people who somehow made this moment with my daughter political.
And there were a lot of comments like this.
I love this one from a feminist who said, Will Matt allow his daughter to go to college, develop a career, be a girl boss?
As a man who promotes rigid gender stereotypes for women, expects women to perform femininity, much like trans ideologues, will he impose those stereotypes on his daughter?
First of all, answer to that, I will absolutely I strongly discourage my daughter from going to college, and I also discourage my other daughter, and also my sons.
I discourage all of my kids.
I greatly discourage them from going to college, so I will answer that in the affirmative for you.
And also, I pray to God that I'm not raising the kinds of girls who become the kinds of women who would describe themselves as girl bosses.
As for expecting my daughters to be feminine, yes, again, I'm guilty as charged.
I want my daughters to grow up in their femininity.
I want my boys to grow up in their masculinity.
I can't teach femininity to my daughter.
That's my wife's job, but that is my hope for them.
I don't know how rigid I really am about that, given that I'm teaching my two-year-old daughter how to bait a hook and catch fish.
Anyway, this is the internet.
This is what you get, I suppose.
All right, here's an update on Big Booty Gate.
Now, just to recap this important news story really very briefly, you remember yesterday a comedian heckling AOC as she was walking into the Capitol building and performing his own mini insurrection by pointing out, you know, her big booty.
Let's just watch that video again.
AOC, my favorite big booty Latina.
I love you, AOC.
You're my favorite.
She wants to kill babies, but she's still beautiful.
You look very beautiful in that dress.
You look very sexy.
Look at that booty on AOC.
That's my favorite big booty Latina.
I want you to do a little selfie.
I love it.
My favorite, AOC.
Nice to meet you, AOC.
Look how sexy she looks in that dress.
Ooh, I love it, AOC.
Hot, hot, hot like a tamale.
Okay, so that was that.
Now we've refreshed our memory.
Making some would say valid observations and AOC at first walks over and looks like she's kind of playing along and she likes the attention but then later she says that actually she was going over to deck the guy but then decided not to because she didn't want to catch a case but she would have just leveled him because we know that when you see AOC you know she knows how to throw a punch right that's the first thing you think you think this is a tough person knows how to throw a punch well some updates to this to this breaking news story we learned last night According to journalist Sarah Ferris, who reported, says, inside Capitol just now, Representative AOC asked to speak with female and LGBT reporters to warn us that the man who harassed her is affiliated with credentialed news outlets.
She said her staff called Capitol Police five times to get them to do something.
So she actually called the police.
Now, we know that in her tweets about it, When originally she said she didn't want to call any attention to this, and then she decided that she was going to call attention.
I mean, she didn't want to call attention to the guy, Alex Stein, but then she decided to because she realized that, well, calling attention to him means calling attention to me, you know?
And she wanted to call attention to herself.
But she said that she expected the police to get involved.
She doesn't know why he was allowed to do this.
That is, why was he allowed to speak to her in a way that she didn't like?
That should be against the law.
He shouldn't have free speech when speaking to her, was her point.
But we didn't know that she actually did call the police.
Not just through a tweet, but actually called them five times.
To demand what?
It's not exactly clear.
You want to go cart this guy away in cuffs?
I wish I could have heard that conversation.
The first time she called and talked to the Capitol Police, I wish I could be a fly on the wall for that conversation.
Reporting.
Oh yeah, you need to get rid of this guy.
Oh, what did he do?
He said, I have a big booty.
That's what he did.
And meanwhile, remember that she has, um, you know, the Capitol police might not be overly eager to help her, especially in this case, because there's nothing they can do.
The guy didn't break the law.
But she also has thrown the Capitol Police under the bus many times after January 6th.
You remember her harrowing story of being in an adjacent building when people were trespassing, not in her building, but in a building next door, and how her life was flashing before her eyes.
It was a life-threatening moment for her.
But then she, remember, tells the story of a Capitol Police officer coming in, To get her to safety, even though her safety was never really in jeopardy.
Then she talks about how she feared the Capitol Police officer.
Feared that he would act out violently against her.
Like, this guy came in to, by her telling, save her life.
And she throws him right under the bus.
So, called the police.
Nothing happened there.
And then another development.
She, before tweeting about it and calling the police, she posted an Instagram video, which she then deleted.
But the internet is forever.
So we have now the video that she first posted before the video of the actual incident went viral.
Here's what she posted immediately afterwards, telling her Instagram followers about it.
And here was her version of events before everyone else had actually seen it for themselves.
Here it is.
Hey everybody, I'm here in the Capitol.
See this guy right there?
Right there.
He, when I was walking up, um, he said, hey, right in front of a Capitol Police officer.
See, my favorite big booty Latina.
I love you AOC.
You're my favorite.
Hey, uh, here's this, look at that big ass, look at that big juicy booty, this Latina, like whatever, you know, all the bunch of racist, sexist stuff.
And since, Nobody can do anything.
She wants to kill babies but she's still beautiful.
I'm just telling you because this institution is not designed to protect people.
Look at that booty on AOC!
That's my favorite big booty Latina!
and it's really hard and it's really sad that my only recourse is to just let you know about it but
that's the institution we're in Ooh, I love it, AOC!
Hot, hot, hot like a tamale!
Okay, so she deleted that, but like we said, the internet's forever, so it's out there.
There are a few great aspects of this.
One is that she adds...
She adds additional descriptions of her booty that were never actually used.
So she claims that her booty was described as juicy and we need a Snopes fact check on that because that was never said.
That's how she's describing herself and then putting that into the mouth of a That's unfortunate phrasing.
That's how she's choosing to describe herself.
This is the kind of narcissism that this woman has, that even in the context of complaining, she's practically in tears about this, and saying that her safety was jeopardized, claiming she was sexually harassed, but she still adds additional, I suppose they're supposed to be flattering descriptions of herself, that were not said.
This is another juicy smolier.
She's putting the juicy in juicy here, I suppose.
But then she also, she says that this institution, talking about Congress, well it's apparently not designed to protect People, and she really means me.
Apparently it's not designed to protect me.
Well, right.
Of course, what institution do you think you're a part of?
The institution is designed to, you're in the legislative branch, it's designed to write legislation, to pass laws.
It's not designed with the primary function of protecting you.
Not at all, actually.
And even through all of this, she never explains what exactly she expects the police to do.
She just wants them... It's what we always get from the left, right?
Do something!
They have to do something!
What do you want them... Do you actually think this guy should be carted away in handcuffs and thrown in prison for describing your booty in ways that you didn't approve of?
Is that actually what... What is the crime?
What crime do you think they're going to charge him with?
Well, of course she doesn't have to explain that.
She has her emotions, and that's all that matters.
She is, as she put it, morally correct, but if not factually correct.
Alright, moving on.
More House hearings on so-called abortion rights.
Yesterday, this one focusing less on pregnant men and more on, I suppose, the actual issue at hand.
Finally, after three or four days of hearings, we've actually gotten to the issue, right, of abortion and all of that.
So here's one exchange between Representative Chip Roy and a pro-abortion witness over something that really matters here in this conversation, which is, when exactly does life begin?
And let's see how that goes.
Who, as a matter of law, who decides when life begins?
And who decides when and how life is protected?
The Constitution does not speak to the question of when life begins, just as it doesn't speak to many other things, including the right to an abortion, and executive privilege, and qualified immunity.
It is a personal decision.
In the absence of the Constitution specifically saying when life begins, Then who best to decide when to protect life?
The people or courts?
Representative Roy, as you know, the question of when life begins is a personal question informed by religious beliefs.
Our Constitution in the very First Amendment says emphatically that the government shall not endorse any particular religion.
It shall not establish religion for that reason.
Professor, when we have life, when we make decisions about protecting life, which we do all the time, if a three-month-old infant is murdered, we protect that life.
If a 50-year-old is murdered, We have laws across the country that protect that life.
We make decisions about when life begins.
My simple question is, as a matter of law, is who decides when we protect life and whether or not that is judges to decide that moment or whether that is elected representatives elected by the people.
Well, Representative Roy, as you say, we have laws.
Those laws are written by our representatives.
We also have fundamental rights.
And as you have noted, these fundamental rights are not unfettered, but they do allow individuals to possess certain freedoms.
For example, the Second Amendment right, despite the fact that we have prohibitions on murder, allow individuals to bear arms.
Indeed, sometimes to effects that are incredibly deleterious.
We have fundamental rights, but one of the fundamental rights is not the right to life, apparently.
You would think that would be the most fundamental right of all.
That would be the right that all other rights are grounded in, because you can't have the right to do anything if you don't exist.
And if you don't have the fundamental right to exist, then how could you have the right to do anything in particular once you do exist?
Doesn't make a lot of sense.
You know, the left will say, well, you have a right to make reproductive decisions.
Obviously, abortion has nothing to do with making a reproductive decision.
But that's the way they frame it.
Well, how would you even have that right if you don't have the right to exist to begin with?
If you have no right to exist on this planet, if you have no right to the very life that you've been granted by God, then within that life and the choices they make, how do you have a right to any of that?
It doesn't make any sense at all.
She also says that It is a personal question.
The question of when life begins is a personal question informed by religious beliefs.
Well, no.
See, it is your personal religious belief that it's a personal religious belief when life begins.
You categorizing the whole question of when life begins as a personal religious belief is your personal religious belief.
As you're a member of the religion of leftism.
But in reality, looked at objectively, it's not a religious question at all, and it's not really a personal question.
It's certainly not personal in the sense of being subjective.
Each person can come up with their own answer, but there is a right answer and a wrong answer.
So, when life begins is a biological, scientific question.
And it has to be that.
Because if it were merely subjective, then no one can be right about it.
Which means that if it's totally subjective, then when I say that life begins at conception, I'm not objectively right.
But then again, when pro-Borsh people say that it doesn't begin at conception, they're also not right.
Nobody's right.
And nobody can claim to be right then.
But no, this is an objective question.
The definition of life is a biological question.
You go to a biology textbook and they will define what life is.
And then you take that definition and see if it applies to a human being at its earliest stages, and the answer is of course it does.
Other witnesses were speaking out about the terrible evils of pregnancy centers.
Listen to this.
First challenge just one of the misleading talking points that our colleagues across the island their witness have been pushing today that the existence of pregnancy crisis care centers is somehow evidence that the anti-abortion movement actually cares about mothers and families.
It's just not true.
In fact, these crisis pregnancy centers are a well-funded arm of the anti-abortion movement that advances their agenda by using deceptive and coercive tactics in medical disinformation to target low-income people facing unintended pregnancies to prevent them from accessing abortion and contraception.
These crisis pregnancy centers, which actually outnumber abortion clinics, often misleadingly present themselves as providing medical services when they're not licensed to do so and therefore are not bound by the privacy laws that govern medical providers.
And in fact, these anti-abortion facilities collect sensitive medical and personal information and then share it with anti-abortion organizations.
These crisis pregnancy centers face limited public accountability despite the fact that they are increasingly siphoning off public funds from the TANF welfare programs, which are supposed to serve low-income women and families.
So that was Representative Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania.
Doing the thing that we've heard now from the Democrats repeatedly since Roe v. Wade was overturned, demonizing pregnancy centers.
Elizabeth Warren, a couple days ago, was singing the same tune.
Let's listen to that.
In Massachusetts right now, those crisis pregnancy centers that are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help, This woman is such a demon.
She really is.
She's a demon in the flesh.
We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts and we need to shut them down all around the country.
You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that.
This woman is such a demon. She really is. She's a demon in the flesh.
You're torturing a pregnant person, she says, because I don't want to say woman.
You're torturing a pregnant man or woman by providing them with food and diapers and baby
clothes and counseling and medical treatment and medical referrals and all kinds of other things.
I mean, there's really no limit.
The only limitation with pregnancy centers, the only limitation in the kind of services that they can provide to women is a matter of fundraising.
And pregnancy centers are not, they don't get billions of dollars of taxpayer funding like the abortion clinics do, like Planned Parenthood does.
The pregnancy centers are not a multi-billion dollar enterprise like the abortion clinics are, and the abortion industry overall.
So the only limitation is just in their own resources, how much money they have.
But when they're well-funded, they can provide.
I mean, there have been pregnancy centers that have teamed together as a community and helped to build houses for pregnant women.
I mean, they've done all kinds of things.
The only thing that they won't do for a pregnant woman is kill the woman's child.
Okay?
Because that's not something that you do for her.
That's actually not a real, true service.
That's something that you inflict on a woman.
And she ultimately becomes a victim of it as well, even if she is choosing it and thinks it's the right thing.
Eventually, she's going to realize it wasn't.
She's going to live with that guilt for the rest of her life.
But notice the way she puts it.
Elizabeth Warren says, well, these pregnancy centers, they outnumber true abortion clinics three to one.
What do you mean true abortion clinics?
Well, these pregnancy centers, they're not true abortion clinics.
Yeah, they never claimed to be.
Because Elizabeth Warren cannot even conceive of any sort of clinic or center that exists to serve pregnant women and yet doesn't and doesn't center its business around killing the baby.
For her, the two things are inextricably linked.
The only true service for a pregnant woman is to make her un-pregnant, violently, by killing the child and discarding it in a medical waste dumpster.
She can't conceive of it any other way.
You know, one of the left's favorite tactics is to say that you can't speak on any subject until you've met and spoken to people in the community you're talking about.
So, of course, if you disagree with them about gender theory, then they assume that it's because you've never talked to a trans person.
You've heard that many times.
I get it all the time.
Anytime I talk about this issue, well, you need to sit down and talk to a trans person.
Well, famously now, I have sat down and talked to a number of trans people, and actually after talking to them, I disagree with gender theory even more after talking to them.
But here's a case with pregnancy centers where it might actually help to meet and talk to the people you're talking about.
Because the way that these Democrats talk about women and men who work at pregnancy centers, they paint them as these deceptive, sinister, plotting, conniving villains who don't actually care.
We heard a bit from the first Democrat there in the first clip.
They don't actually care about women at all.
They only care about their anti-abortion agenda.
You know, if you go and actually meet these people, as I have, I've met and talked to hundreds of people at work at pregnancy centers.
I've given speeches at dozens and dozens and dozens of pregnancy center fundraisers over the years.
I've attended marches and rallies and other events with people that work in this field.
And they are, I mean, truly, The nicest people you'll ever meet.
Just the nicest people.
Because they have to be.
There's no money in this.
Again, it's not like the abortion industry, where you can make a lot of money.
The abortion doctors, they make a lot of money.
Abortionists, I should say.
It's a lot of money in it.
The people running Planned Parenthood make millions of dollars.
But in running a pregnancy center, you're not going to enrich yourself.
You're going to be almost as poor as the women you're helping, if not as poor as them, and you've given your life to simply serving women in need.
You have to be a nice, caring person to do that.
If you have sinister motivations, you wouldn't survive.
You wouldn't survive in this field, doing this every single day.
It's just completely absurd.
All right, here's some good news for you on a Friday.
We could all use some good news.
It says, Americans' confidence in the U.S.
public school system has fallen nearly to an all-time low of 26%, recorded in 2014, according to a poll released Thursday that also found the gap between the faith Democrats and Republicans have in the system has expanded.
Overall, 28% of Americans say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the country's school systems.
Barely beating the record low from 2014.
Trust has been on a downward slide since it hit a high of 62% in 1975 but rebounded slightly to 41% in 2020.
since it hit a high of 62% in 1975, but rebounded slightly to 41% in 2020.
So for how long have a majority of Americans distrusted the public school system?
We were at 62% in 1975.
When did it dip below majority?
We don't have that exactly here, but I think we can assume that for decades that's been the case.
The rate then plummeted to 32% in 2021 and 28% in 2022.
The survey also indicated the stark political divide between parties, with 43% of Democrats saying they have confidence in the system, compared to only 14% of Republicans.
Among independents, that rate is at 29%.
But even for Democrats, it's still pretty low.
So that's the good news.
Okay?
Now, it's not good that we have an education system which deserve so little of our trust, but given that we do have that education system, it's good that people have noticed it.
That's the good part.
The bad news, though, is, okay, 28% of Americans, only 28% of Americans have faith or trust in the school system.
Well, I went and checked the figures.
85 to 90% of American kids are still in the public school system.
So I'm trying to figure that out.
Only 28% trust it, but then 90% of our kids are still in the system.
Which means that you've got millions of American families, it would seem to suggest, who don't trust the system, and yet still send their kids into it, and don't trust it.
I know all the excuses and I always add the disclaimers that there are people who legitimately cannot make the decision right now at this moment to abandon the public school system.
They can't do it.
For financial reasons, for other kinds of reasons.
But there are a lot of people who could make that decision right away and don't because of the sacrifices it would require.
And we just have to decide what's most important to us.
The fact that we have an education system that is decaying, that is totally corrupted from the ground up, that is a big problem.
The fact that the vast majority of Americans do not trust the education system, the system that educates our children, that shapes and forms our children, The fact that nobody trusts it is a huge problem.
Well, if you want to solve a huge problem, it requires major sacrifices.
It just does.
And you have to be willing to do bold things that might seem even a little bit crazy.
And for a lot of people, you're so used to it, you kind of grow up in this system, you're in public school, it's just what everyone does.
The idea of getting out of that system, homeschooling, looking for alternatives, it seems crazy for a lot of people.
Well, it's not crazy, but even if it seems that way to you, You have to be willing to do things like that, radical things, if we want to solve a problem of this magnitude.
There's just no other way around it.
All right.
Let's see.
What else do we have here?
Okay, I wanted to talk about this.
I don't have a lot of time for it, but maybe we'll revisit it next week.
This is from The Mirror.
It says, Nikki and Graham Scott's gender-reveal party started out like any other.
The couple from Ontario, Canada celebrated the momentous occasion as they revealed the gender of their baby to wider family.
But their child wasn't a tiny tot yet to be born.
The party was for their eight-year-old daughter after, quote-unquote, she told them she no longer wanted to live as a boy.
Ella Scott Eight first told her parents that she didn't feel like a boy inside when she was six.
And then they decided to throw this big public gender reveal party.
Gender reveal announcing their child's quote-unquote new gender to the world.
And this is what parents do.
As we always talk about, yes, it's virtue signaling.
Okay, yes, they're using their kids as fashion accessories and pawns to signal their own virtue to the world.
But also, there's an actual strategy behind it.
And what they're looking to do is lock, as much as they claim that they want their child to be able to explore freely and make all free decisions.
No, what they're doing is they're locking their child down in that false identity by making it into a public spectacle.
I mean, how else is the child supposed to interpret that?
You've thrown a party, invited all family and friends, you've announced it on the, you've gone to the media and told everybody about it.
Now you've put all this pressure on your child, on purpose, saying, this is who you are now.
And if you change your mind, that's going to be very embarrassing and disappointing for lots of people, so you can't change your mind.
You're stuck with this.
That's the strategy behind it.
Now, I checked on YouTube to see if this interview was available there so I could play it rather than read it and I didn't find it but I did find something else that very much related to this.
This is an apparently prominent YouTube YouTuber, YouTube family.
He's got 1.7 million subscribers.
I know I'm going to mispronounce the name.
I don't know how I'm supposed to pronounce this.
Saconjolis?
I don't know.
S-A-C-C-O-N-E-J-O-L-Y-S.
That's the channel.
And it's this family, apparently mother and father, and they've kind of like raised their kids on YouTube, and they've been exploiting their kids for YouTube fame for a long time.
Well, just a couple of weeks ago, the reason that this popped up when I was looking for this other interview is that they unveiled their own trans 8-year-old and I wanted to show you a little bit of this video.
Watch this.
Hey guys, welcome to my video!
Today I thought we would do something fun.
Don't mind the fact that Edie now looks fabulous, okay?
Because in between making this video, we actually shot a TikTok where we straightened her hair.
This is my first time ever straightening hair, by the way.
Can I, can I, can we get some, can we get some, like, applauses here?
I did a pretty good job, right?
You say yes, father.
That is the best hair straightening I've ever seen.
She's also wearing lashes.
Oh my goodness.
Oh my goodness.
Anyway, we thought we would make a video because so many people have been asking us to talk about all the other names that Edie did not use when she was changing her name to Edelicious.
She is officially Edelicious, but shortened.
It's not.
It's just Edie.
But we decided we'd make a video.
And I thought it would be better if Edie made the video.
So in her own words, she's going to tell you guys, bring you on a journey.
A journey.
OK.
So their son now, quote unquote, identifies as a girl with the name Edelicious.
And as you can see there in the video, this father, and I use that term only in the biological dictionary definition sense of the term and no others, This father is holding his son up in front of the camera, you know, wearing makeup and false eyelashes, hair grown out, straight in the hair.
So this father has dolled up his own son as a girl and is now just literally holding him up in front of the camera saying, look at this, look what I got.
Here's the point to make about this.
I've made many points about it in the past, but this is abuse, obviously, yes, but this is sexual abuse of a child, and I really think we need to start putting it that way and being specific in that way.
Because when you just say, well, this is abusive towards a child, that should be enough for people, right?
That should carry enough power.
Because any kind of abuse is horrific when inflicted on a child.
But I think it needs more specificity.
We need to be more specific in the charge that we are making.
So this is in fact a form of sexual abuse of a child.
And the parents that do this to their kids, That cross-dress their kids and give them these false sexual identities.
And especially dress up their sons in makeup and false eyelashes that would be inappropriate for a girl of that age.
I mean, how weird would it be if that was an actual girl and the father was holding her up in front of the camera.
Look, I did her hair and I gave her false eyelashes.
I mean, how weird would that be?
Weird as an understatement.
So this is the sexual abuse of a child.
The people that do this are sexual abusers of their own kids.
That's what we need to say because it's true.
Let's get down to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
You notice when stores are trying to sell products that they know next to
nothing about, maybe they push the shoes that are most popular rather than the
ones that actually fit your feet.
Well, I like rockauto.com because what they know is auto parts and all they sell is auto parts and all the related tools.
Rock Auto is a family business founded by automotive engineers over 20 years ago.
Their original goal was and still is to make auto parts available and affordable so customers can keep They're daily drivers and classics safely on the road.
RockAuto.com's online parts catalog is uniquely easy to navigate.
You quickly see all the parts available for your specific car, SUV, or truck.
There are photo specs and installation tips to help you pick the best parts to meet your vehicle's needs, so it's very easy for you and very affordable.
RockAuto.com will not only have the part, but usually they're going to give you several trusted brands to choose from.
Huge selection with RockAuto.com.
And their kits are also popular because they bundle together all the parts needed for successful repair.
You don't get halfway through installing a timing belt and discover you need another pulley or something like that.
All you gotta do is go to rockauto.com.
Get the brakes, shocks, carpets, wipers, headlights, mirrors, mufflers, lug nuts, or any other part you need.
Be sure when you check out to write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that I sent you.
Eathman says, the next Matt Walsh merch should be a big booty latinx badge.
I like the idea.
I'm going to need to workshop it a little bit.
I'm not sure.
You know, usually these badges come with some kind of image.
There are lots of ways we can get ourselves in trouble with that, but, you know, we'll work with it.
We're always open to suggestions for the Matt Walsh merchandise stores.
By the way, you can go to dailywire.com slash shop and find so many great items there.
Olu says, I subscribed to DW because of what is a woman, only to find out that your show airs earlier on DW.
The schmucks on YouTube have to wait for a whole hour.
You could have said so, and I would have subscribed way earlier.
That's a good, that's yet another perk and that's why you should become a DailyWire member, is that you can get this exact content just an hour earlier.
I think there are better perks, which is why I usually go with, you know, the premium content and that sort of thing when I'm pitching to subscribers, but that is, that's also one of them.
Brandon says, early comment here, so you may mention this later, but the reason the people with the ability to get pregnant is not a good definition for women is because of menopause.
I don't think an elderly woman should be considered not a woman.
So, as I agree with the point you were making, that would not be the ideal definition of woman.
And another comment agrees, says, I love Matt Walsh, but sometimes I think he needs to think before he speaks.
I believe the topic of pregnant men is disgusting, but the fact that Walsh said the ability to get pregnant defines women is kind of offensive and rude.
I mean, my cousin's girlfriend is infertile, so that's kind of not a really good thing to say.
I get he's trying to be nice, but saying pregnant women are better than women But the way he said it is just misleading.
Also, conservatives aren't the only ones who hate this leftist crap.
Now, I wasn't trying to be nice at all.
My point, I'm never, that's never my, my overarching point is never simply to be nice, okay?
And especially when we're talking about the definition of woman, I'm trying to be accurate.
And yes, defining a woman as a human being with the capacity to get pregnant, that is an accurate definition.
And yes, I am aware that there are women who are infertile, there are women who have passed menopause, there are women who for various other reasons can't get pregnant, but that does not change the fact that women are those with the capacity to get pregnant.
Just like I could say, if I was looking to describe a human being and define a human being, one of the things I would say is that a human being walks on two legs.
Would anyone object to that?
Would anyone object to the statement That a human being walks on two legs.
Well, no, of course you wouldn't.
Okay?
Because, like, the point is that we don't crawl around on all fours.
We don't slither on the ground like a snake.
We don't fly through the air.
We walk on two legs.
That's an important defining feature of a human being.
The fact that, well, babies can't walk on two legs.
Elderly people sometimes in wheelchairs can't.
Disabled people cannot walk on two legs.
That doesn't change the validity of the statement.
Okay, because a human being, in principle, is able to walk on two legs.
Maybe another way you could put it is, if you want to be very specific in your language, a human being is someone of the nature to walk on two legs.
So you could say a woman is someone of the nature to become pregnant.
And the fact that some women suffer from illnesses or simply are just older and not able to, that does not change that definition.
Because if it does, then you've created a situation where we can't talk about anything.
We can't describe or talk about anything because there are always going to be these exceptions.
There are always going to be aberrations.
And so you make it impossible to describe women, you make it impossible to describe human beings, you make it like there's no physical feature of a human being that everybody, or there are very few anyway, that all human beings share.
There are almost always going to be aberrations and disabilities and deformities where, you know, certain aspects of, you know, people suffer from certain things where they don't share some of these features.
So that's the situation you create.
Or, you know, we can talk about these things in principle, and we all know what we're trying to say.
Listen, I know this is going to come as a great shock, but the latest overpriced celebrity-laden blockbuster from Netflix arrived with a dull thud.
And that's just one more in a long line of duds that Hollywood has produced this summer and, honestly, over the last several years.
Rather than waste this weekend watching another mediocre production, here's a humble suggestion.
Check out Daily Wire Plus.
Daily Wire Plus is everything you love about the Daily Wire Plus, so much more.
And we're continuing to build our content library with movies and shows that are engaging, entertaining, and thought-provoking.
Like, for example, my movie, What is a Woman?
Unlike a Hollywood movie that comes and goes in less time than it takes to make a trip to the popcorn stand, What is a Woman still holds a 97% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes from over 5,000 reviews.
Then there's Gina Carano's summer blockbuster Terror on the Prairie that will keep you on the edge of your seat, and shows like Fauci Unmasked and Jordan Peterson's new four-part series Dragon Monsters and Men.
Imagine that.
Shows and movies that you actually want to see.
That's what you get from DailyWirePlus.
It's time to build the future you want to see.
And get the shows you want to see at the exact same time.
Become a member at dailywireplus.com.
And for a limited time, you can get 35% off your new membership with code PLUS.
So head to dailywireplus.com today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, the latest white person to run afoul of the cultural appropriation police is Gwen Stefani.
The former lead singer of No Doubt is back with a new single featuring Sean Paul, not to be confused with John Paul, the canonized pope.
Sometimes you get the two confused.
The former is a Jamaican rapper, and the collaboration between Paul and Stefani reflects Paul's Jamaican roots.
Here's just a quick look at the music video.
Set your body ablaze, your body ablaze Me and you, baby, set your body ablaze Set your body ablaze, your body ablaze Me and you, baby, set your body ablaze Baby, won't you light my fire?
[MUSIC]
Well, there's certainly no question that it's an objectively terrible song.
Stefani is yet another pop star in her 50s who's been in the music business for several decades and yet steadfastly refuses to grow or evolve at all as an artist.
It's almost an achievement in its own right to do something for 40 years and not improve.
In fact, her music today would seem to have less substance than the stuff that she was putting out 35 years ago as an angsty teenager singing breakup songs.
But Gwen Stefani does not stand accused of making bad music.
Certainly, any court would convict her on that charge, but that's not the charge.
Instead, she's accused of appropriating.
That is, stealing from other cultures.
Sneaking into other cultures in the middle of the night and committing a culture heist.
Snatching up musical sounds and dance moves and hairstyles that don't belong to her and using these ill-begotten cultural items for her own selfish ends.
That's the accusation.
This is not the first time the singer has faced these kinds of accusations.
As an article in USA Today explained last year, Stefania has faced decades of cultural appropriation accusations, from wearing a bindi, a South Asian religious symbol, in the 90s to her 2005 luxurious music video where she imitated Hispanic culture and seductively danced in an Our Lady of Guadalupe shirt.
And that seems like appropriating from Catholic culture, if anything.
In 2012, Stefani donned Native American attire in No Doubt's Looking Hot music video, which depicted a cowboy versus Indian fight with teepees and feathered headdresses.
My God!
The group pulled the video and apologized for being hurtful and offensive, but the most serious claim of cultural appropriation came from the Japanese-inspired imagery Stefani used heavily on her 2004 album Love, Angel, Music, Baby, which birthed her number one single, Hollaback Girl, and her Harajuku Girls entourage.
Comedian Margaret Cho has compared Stefani's girl group of dancers of Japanese descent, which frequently accompanied the pop star in music videos and red carpet events, to a minstrel show.
A minstrel show because she used actual Japanese dancers?
No, minstrel shows mostly featured white people in blackface mocking black people.
So if you want a good example of a modern minstrel show, all you need to do is look at the footage from any drag event.
There you have men in womenface making an overly sexualized, gratuitous, and ugly mockery of femininity and womanhood.
But as has been established many times over, gay crossdressers and people who identify as trans are exempt from the anti-appropriation rules.
They can steal, pilfer, appropriate until they've had their fill.
A man can put on a dress, makeup, fake breasts, call himself a woman's name, and yet somehow appropriate nothing.
But a woman who simply dons a different hairstyle is a vicious cultural thief.
Those are the rules, no matter how little sense they make.
Now, as for the latest appropriation allegation against Stefani, Newsweek reports, Gwen Stefani is being accused of cultural appropriation following the release of her new music video with Sean Paul and Shensia.
Um, quote, culture is nothing but dress up for you, Gwen, one person wrote.
It's time you stop treating people's heritage like a childish game and give it the respect it deserves.
They continued, alternatively, why don't you portray your own cultural background within your work?
I'm sure people would love to see that.
A second agreed, writing, heavy sigh.
I refuse to believe no one attempted to explain this to her, especially considering there's been public discourse about her appropriation.
So the conclusion is she's aware and she doesn't give an S.
I'm sure her insert-other-ethnicities-friend said it's okay.
And there are other similar comments.
Now, this is all nonsense, of course.
You would think that the people who, you know, love to see everything as fluid and on a spectrum and a human construct would understand that culture is, by definition, the most fluid human construct of all.
It's a human construct, and it's fluid.
Culture is, it's simply, it's the customs, the traditions, the arts, Institutions of any group of people.
And all of those things are evolving.
They're in a constant exchange with other cultures.
To put it in a very lefty sounding way, cultures are in conversation with each other.
And in this era where everybody is so connected, that process is in hyperdrive.
This is why even if it made sense to accuse one culture of stealing something from another culture, which it doesn't, Because theft deprives the victim of the thing being stolen, but nobody's being prevented from wearing dreadlocks or singing reggae just because Gwen Stefani is doing it.
But even if that made sense, still we would never be able to identify who is actually guilty of stealing from whom.
Humans have been making culture in some form or another for tens of thousands of years.
For most trends and fashions, it's not possible to identify a definitive date or place of origin.
Because anytime you think you have it, well, this is when this fashion came into being.
Well, yeah, but whoever came up with that, like, they were influenced by something.
And whoever they were influenced by was influenced by it.
And you just keep going farther and farther back.
It's just, it's impossible to come up with a definitive beginning.
And even if you could.
Um, who cares, is the other question.
Even if you could identify all this stuff.
Dreadlocks in particular have a diverse history and have been worn by people of many different races.
Vikings wore dreadlocks.
Hindus wore them.
So who owns them?
Answer, nobody.
Because style is not a thing that can be owned.
We might as well say that whoever baked the first loaf of bread owns the concept of bread, and only the direct descendants of that person are allowed to make bread.
But even that analogy doesn't quite capture the absurdity of the cultural appropriation premise, because bread, after all, is a solid physical thing.
Culture is not.
So maybe it's more like claiming that the first person to ever feel a certain emotion or experience a certain mood now lays claim over that experience and only his progeny may partake in it.
But all this is obvious, I think, and the people who promote the cultural appropriation myth certainly already know it.
They know that cultural appropriation is a nonsensical concept, which is why it's a standard that they never apply to themselves.
Because they know it's an impossible standard.
It's only ever applied to white people.
You'll notice that no non-white person is accused of cultural appropriation.
It is a charge reserved almost exclusively for white people.
Why is that?
Because it's not about cultural appropriation, but cultural deprivation.
By taking anything a white person says or does, or any art they create, bad art in this case, but still, Or taking anything they wear, or any style or fashion, whatever it is, and tracing it back through some circuitous and often partly fictionalized route to a non-white culture, declaring that it's now off-limits for white people, the promoters of this idea are really saying that white people are not allowed to have or participate in any sort of culture at all.
Just as white people are not allowed to have an identity.
They certainly aren't allowed to be proud of their heritage or ancestry.
All of that is reserved for non-white people.
There was another comment on this, which was quoted by a Yahoo article that makes this clear.
The Twitter user posted, "If Gwen Stefani proves one thing, it's that Caucasian culture as a whole
just isn't anything to get excited about. What's she going to do? Build a career around summer
dresses, hats, and beige?" Now, I would be slammed as a racist for even
referring to "Caucasian culture" at all.
But a non-white person is allowed to claim the existence of a white culture only to degrade it and limit it to summer dresses and beige.
This of course is the real point.
Cultural appropriation is a fundamentally and specifically anti-white invention.
And that's why it is Once again, not for the first time, not for the last.
Canceled.
And that'll do it for us today and the week.
We'll talk to you on Monday.
Have a great weekend.
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 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.
Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, Democrats say they want to speak for minorities and blue-collar workers, but their politics is instead driven by college-educated white elites.
Plus, AOC reacts to being trolled by yelling at the Capitol Police.
