Ep. 992 - The Groomers Want To Ban You From Calling Them Groomers
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Big Tech is now hunting down and banning anyone who accuses LGBT activists of “grooming.” Why aren’t we allowed to say that? Well, because it’s true. Also, more fallout from the bombshell report revealing that Big Pharma has been lying for years about the anti-depressants it sells. Plus, we’ll check in on a local news segment with an “HR expert” about the correct approach to preferred pronouns in the workplace. And Democrats in the House pass the Right To Contraception Act, codifying our alleged God given right to birth control, and destroying religious religion, not to mention common sense, in the process.
Become a DailyWire+ member today to access my documentary “What Is A Woman?” and the entire content library: https://utm.io/ueMfc
—
Today’s Sponsors:
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, Big Tech is now hunting down and banning anyone who accuses LGBT activists of grooming.
But why aren't we allowed to say that?
Well, because it's true.
Also, more fallout from the bombshell report revealing that Big Pharma has been lying for years about the antidepressants that it sells.
Plus, we'll check in on a local news segment with an HR expert about the correct approach to preferred pronouns in the workplace.
And Democrats in the House passed the Right to Contraception Act, codifying our alleged God-given right to birth control and destroying religious freedom, not to mention common sense, in the process.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh show.
Well I have some unfortunate news for you today.
Abandoned shopping carts have attacked my car.
You've never heard this story before.
If you have, I'll tell it again.
It was only a matter of time.
I saw this coming five years ago, which prompted my initial cancellation of people who don't return their shopping carts to the designated shopping cart areas.
And here we are with rogue shopping carts crashing into my car, scratching my front bumper, totaling the car, destroying my life.
And there are two lessons we can take away from this.
One, don't be lazy.
Put your shopping carts away so that I and my car don't have to needlessly suffer.
And number two, most importantly, RockAuto.com is the place to go when you find yourself in this sort of situation.
RockAuto.com is an online family-owned business that sells all the auto parts you could ever need specific to your own vehicle.
Their prices are shockingly reasonable and they ship fast.
Their website makes it incredibly easy to find the right parts for your car with photos, specs, and even installation tips.
RockAuto.com will not only have the parts, but usually they'll give you several trusted brands to choose from so you get a big selection as well.
RockAuto's kits are also popular because they bundle together all the parts needed for a successful repair.
You don't get halfway through installing a timing belt and discover that you need another pulley or something like that.
So you go to RockAuto.com for your auto parts needs today.
Get everything you need there.
And while you're there, be sure to use code WOLSH in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that I sent you.
Little while ago, Eric Roman, who is a public school employee in Mount Pleasant, Michigan, attended a school board meeting where he rose to the microphone, donning his Black Lives Matter t-shirt, introduced himself as both LGBT and fully vaccinated, and then proceeded to speak out against parents who oppose the LGBT indoctrination of their children.
He mocked and belittled them.
He made fun of all of their Concerns, and he was quite proud of himself, too.
Very proud of what he was saying, and thought that he was giving quite a rising speech.
As you can tell, let's take a look.
I'm a resident, townie, taxpayer, vaccinated and functioning, graduate of this high school, class of 1999, proud member of the LGBTQIA community, and an employee of Mount Pleasant Public Schools.
Thank you.
I really cannot speak any more eloquently than the people who have spoken before me tonight.
But what I can say is that for the last five years, I have had the profound privilege of working with your students.
With your students.
With your students.
And I can tell you this, they are hungry for knowledge.
They are so hungry for knowledge that despite your words, Your wishes, your values, they will learn on their own.
So many of your children are hurting, questioning, struggling in this world that we have created.
They are simultaneously being taught to celebrate and to hate who they are.
I can't deny that.
Every day.
Ultimately, they will become who they will become with or without us.
Give them the chance, the grace, And the support to embrace their own learning.
They're going to do it anyway.
No matter what you say or do.
Kids are hungry for knowledge, he says.
And he's right.
Kids are hungry for knowledge.
They are.
But LGBT indoctrination is not knowledge.
Gender fluidity is not knowledge.
Guys like him do not impart knowledge any more than a Scientology center imparts knowledge.
Kids are hungry for knowledge indeed, and they leave our school system still starving for it.
But according to a report in the National File, it seems Eric Roman was hungry himself for something else.
The report says, a Michigan public school employee who staunchly advocated for LGBT curricula to his district school board has been arrested as part of a police sting operation targeting local pedophiles.
41-year-old Eric Roman, an employee of Mount Pleasant, Michigan's public school system, was arrested as part of an Isabella County Sheriff's Office sting operation that also saw two more alleged child predators put behind bars.
According to local reports, Isabella County law enforcement was assisted in the sting by agents from the FBI and the Michigan State Police, among others.
Along with two other men, Eric Roman, 42, of Mount Pleasant, was arrested at an undisclosed location.
All three were arrested for using a computer to commit a crime and accosting a minor for immoral purposes.
Police allege the three communicated over various social media apps with decoys posing as children.
The three are accused of going to a location to have sex with a child where they were arrested.
The report goes on to explain.
So this man you just heard there in that clip doesn't like it when public school employees are called groomers.
And in his case, You know, maybe he has a point.
He's not a groomer.
He's already moved well beyond the grooming stage.
Meanwhile, another viral video shows a second grade teacher bragging about her class coming out as gender fluid.
And if that statement seems confusing, yes, I mean what I said.
Her entire class of second graders came out all at once, she says.
Watch.
So it took a couple of days for me to make this TikTok.
Without crying, because that's what I do.
Please ignore the dog bone crunching behind me.
Anyhow, one of my students felt safe enough to share his pronouns with me.
And when he did so, once the class knew that I knew, they all switched pronouns.
They're second graders.
Like I'm torn between being really, really happy to be a safe space and just absolutely furious that an entire group of second graders has to keep this secret from not safe people.
Why are kids feeling unsafe?
And furthermore, why does everyone talk about how- how are the kids gonna understand?
The kids f***ing understand it.
It's easy for them.
It's the adults who have all of the f***ing issues and hang-ups and bulls***.
Kids are fine.
Keep it a secret.
From unsafe people, she says.
And the unsafe people, of course, being the children's parents.
Now, in a sane country, just that video alone, and we've seen so many like it, but just that one would be a major scandal, a big story.
I mean, think about what she's just told us.
She says that her entire class of second graders switched pronouns, meaning that they came out as trans or non-binary or gender fluid or whatever other nonsense.
The whole class.
Even if gender theory made sense, which it doesn't, but if it did, does it predict or account for classrooms of young children being LGBT?
No, nothing accounts for this except for the truth, which is that kids are being groomed and recruited on a massive scale.
And that assisting in this effort is a social contagion effect so potent that it can spread through whole classrooms and schools and generations at lightning speed.
One more example, Breitbart reports today the Centers for Disease Control is promoting to youth an online chat space that discusses sex, polyamorous relationships, the occult, sex change operations, and activism, and is specifically designed to be quickly hidden while being used.
It also mixes LGBT adults and children and is run in part by Planned Parenthood.
Called QChat Space, the platform is advertised on the CDC's LGBT Health Youth Resources page The chat service, which describes itself as a community for LGBTQ plus teens, is available for those ages 13 to 19, can be hidden from parents, and focuses on a number of mature themes.
Q-Chat hosts conversations on a number of different mature and sexual topics, including Drag Culture 101, sex and relationships, and having multiple genders intended for bi, pan youth.
Q-Chat also features conversations on gender affirmation surgeries, as well as on hormone replacement therapy.
The chats are used, in part, to tell children where you can find resources related to their transition.
Now, demonstrating just how scientific gender theory is, this site also has lessons on astrology and tarot cards.
One is titled Self-Discovery in Astrology, and another is called Queering Tarot, because apparently tarot is not queer enough already.
The grooming conspiracy we see is vast and far-reaching, and though it focuses especially on sexuality, it does not limit itself to that.
The goal is to turn your child into a disciple of their religion with fealty to all of its tenets, even the most bizarre ones, especially the most bizarre ones.
As these grooming efforts ramp up, then, so too do the efforts to prevent people from talking about it.
So last week, a popular Reddit forum officially banned people from using the word groomer, which I guess we now must call the G-word, declaring that the word groomer is homophobic and it's anti- it's a slur.
It's a homophobic slur.
Soon, leftist groups like Media Matters were calling on all other social media platforms to ban the term as well, prohibiting people from pointing out when LGBT activists are engaging in grooming.
An article in the leftist online rag The Daily Dot echoed these calls, claiming that the Groomer label is fueling an escalation in, quote, hateful attacks against LGBT people.
And we're hearing this claim a lot, this rise in attacks against LGBT people, which we're always told can be traced back to the evil right-wingers like myself using terms like Groomer.
Now, to prove that such an escalation and epidemic is underway, This article in the Daily Beast links to a Washington Post article which asserts a surge in anti-LGBTQ threats.
And they provide no evidence of this surge, but instead link to another article, this one a fact sheet compiled by something called the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project.
And the fact sheet announces that anti-LGBT plus mobilization is on the rise in the United States.
So we begin to see How the game of leftist telephone works.
And this is really important because we hear so much about misinformation.
Well, this is how misinformation really works.
Most of it comes from the left.
So you have one article claiming an escalation in anti-LGBT attacks, and they cite an article which claims escalations in anti-LGBT threats, which in turn cites an article which claims anti-LGBT mobilization.
So we go from mobilization to threats to attacks.
And they all source themselves back to the same source.
They're all citing the same thing.
You see, as the propaganda filters from one organ to the next, it becomes more dramatic, more dire-sounding.
And as for this anti-LGBT mobilization, which again serves as the basis for the claim that anti-LGBT attacks are on the rise, we're told by this group here that mobilization refers to any demonstrations, violent or peaceful, also any political violence or any propaganda activity such as passing out flyers.
So if this group decides that your peaceful demonstration is anti-LGBT.
So, for example, and they say later in the article that much of this is happening in Florida.
So, if you attended a rally, a peaceful rally, in support of the anti-groomer bill in Florida, then you are lumped in here.
You are part of the rise of anti-LGBT attacks, even though you didn't attack anybody.
It only took two links to turn flyers and peaceful demonstrations into violent attacks.
But in following this thread of misinformation, we've lost sight of the point, which is part of the point of misinformation to begin with, is to make you lose sight of what you really should be talking about.
The claim is that these violent attacks, which are almost completely fictional to begin with, are fueled by people criticizing LGBT activists for grooming.
And so you shouldn't be allowed to use the word anymore, the left says.
Which they don't prove that either.
So they claim that there are all these attacks happening, can't prove that, and they also claim that these attacks, which are unproven and mostly fictional, are fueled by people saying the word grooming, and that's not proven either.
It only took a few days of pressure for Facebook and TikTok to announce that they too have banned the term, and then Twitter followed suit most recently.
Yesterday, the author James Lindsay was locked out of his account and suspended for tweeting the phrase, OK Groomer.
That got him suspended now.
Just like that, groomer is on par with the n-word.
It's a word so vicious and harmful and hateful that it can't even be written, much less spoken.
And why are they so afraid of the word?
Well, because it's true.
The label has power because it has the force of truth behind it.
The word correctly and succinctly captures and describes the left's campaign to sexualize the youngest generations.
There is nothing these people hate more than the truth.
Nothing that scares them more than the truth.
They have no recourse in the face of the truth.
They have no defense against it.
They have no argument.
They have no rebuttal.
They can do nothing when confronted with the truth except try to silence it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Well, yesterday we discussed the massive news laying bare yet another big pharma scam.
And we'll get to that in just a moment.
about laying bare yet another big pharma scam.
And I would say, and this is quite a statement, but the greatest big pharma scam of all time, I think, when you look at the numbers involved, the money they've made off of it and the damage caused.
It is, again, it's saying a lot because there are a lot of them, but I think this is the greatest, the biggest big pharma scam of all time.
And that is the claim that depression is rooted in a chemical imbalance in the brain.
And that is the basis upon which millions and millions of Americans for decades have been prescribed antidepressants in order to cure this chemical imbalance.
And now we find out that Well, that depression has nothing to do with a chemical imbalance.
It was a myth, a fiction.
At best, a guess.
A guess that was made decades ago and then glommed onto by institutions like Big Pharma because they could profit off of it.
Now I say, and this is an important follow-up in the Daily Mail today, because I say that, well, we just found out.
It was just revealed that the chemical imbalance theory was false.
That's not actually true.
It was not just revealed.
This has actually been known for a long time.
So it's much worse than maybe we make it sound when we say that this just came out now.
Because then maybe Big Pharma has an excuse.
They could say, well, we didn't know.
Then we could blame them for not doing their due diligence, not doing enough research, but then maybe they could plead ignorance.
They could say, we really didn't know, we thought it worked.
Well, no.
Actually, for decades, it has been known that the chemical imbalance theory is not correct.
The Daily Mail has this.
Psychiatrists have been aware for years that low serotonin levels may not cause depression despite continuing to prescribe the pills, a chair of psychology has said.
Dr. Jonathan Raskin from State University of New York told DailyMail.com he'd been concerned that the theory that depression was caused by low serotonin levels was incomplete for a while.
He said many medics continued to prescribe the medication even while they were unsure if they were effective because it was easier than offering more time-intensive care.
The pills could still help some patients, he added, but they're not a cure-all for those suffering from depression.
This week, a landmark UK study called into question society's ever-growing reliance on antidepressants like Prozac, and so then it refused the study, which we're going to need to go over again.
But the point is that this has been known by the psychiatrists.
"Depression is a complicated issue and the idea that we would be able to reduce it simply to
serotonin is not right. When we give antidepressants, we don't do this based on biological tests
showing they don't have enough serotonin, but if we think it could help them." Asked
whether people should keep taking the pills, he said, "I think that this is a conversation worth having."
I'm not going to say people should or should not be on them, but I think there has been a lot of popular dissemination of the idea that we have reduced depression to low serotonin levels.
So this has been known.
Speaking of what people have known for years, there's an article in the Scientific American 11 years ago, back in 2011, This is what was published.
It says, in a New York Times essay in defense of antidepressants, Peter Kramer, a professor of psychiatry at Brown, insists that antidepressants work ordinarily well on a par with other medications doctors prescribe.
Kramer's article seeks to rebut a wave of negative coverage of antidepressants, most notably a two-part essay in the New York Review of Books by Marcia Engel, Former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and now a lecturer in social medicine at Harvard.
Engel cites research suggesting that antidepressants may not be any more effective than placebos for treating most forms of depression.
Engel highlights a meta-analysis carried out by the psychologist Irving Kirsch of trials of a half-dozen popular antidepressants submitted by drug companies to the FDA.
Many of the studies were never published because they failed to yield positive results.
Let's stop there for a second.
These were studies that failed to yield positive results, and so they just didn't publish them.
And when we say positive results, we mean results that affirm the effectiveness of antidepressants.
They were not able to affirm it, confirm it, and so they just didn't publish the studies.
After analyzing all the FDA studies, Kirsch concluded that placebos are 82% as effective as antidepressants.
According to Kirsch, this difference vanishes if antidepressants are compared to active placebos, which are compounds that block certain nerve receptors and cause dry mouth and other symptoms that have distinct side effects.
This is 2011 again.
Over a decade ago.
It was known and being published that when you put an antidepressant up against a placebo, there is almost no difference.
And then the difference goes away completely with active placebos.
And why does the active placebo matter?
Well, because if they give you, you know, if you give someone just basically a sugar pill, but it has certain compounds in it that causes a side effect, dry mouth, something like that, then they're going to really feel like, oh, well, this thing is working.
And then they're going to convince themselves that they feel better.
And now they do feel better.
It was published 11 years ago, but it was known much sooner than that.
The FDA knew it, but the studies weren't published because it didn't help big pharma.
This is why I say this is the greatest big pharma scandal of all time.
It's a massive scandal.
They're prescribing these drugs with, by the way, the drugs that they're giving out are not sugar pills.
These are dangerous, highly potent, psychotropic drugs with serious side effects, including suicide.
These are mind-altering substances that Big Pharma was giving out knowing that they didn't work.
Or at the very least, they didn't work the way they claimed they were working.
And that you could actually give sugar pills to at least 82% of these people and they would feel the same.
I'm hoping this is a red pill moment for lots of people, you know, about Big Pharma and also the psychiatric industry.
The ultimate red pill moment is to realize that the whole basis of modern psychology is built on a flawed understanding of human nature.
Because I've been talking about Big Pharma and implicating them, but it's not just them.
Yeah, Big Pharma is out there making the billions and trillions of dollars, but how are the drugs getting prescribed?
Big Pharma is the system, the meat grinder that people are being fed into.
the wood chipper that they're being thrown into, but who's picking people up and tossing them into
it? Psychiatrists, doctors. And we'll know that we're really getting somewhere when we start to
question the fundamental basis of so much of modern psychiatry. Because the idea is that
we hear from psychiatrists is that there is a baseline sort of normal, desirable,
healthy personality and disposition and emotional and mental makeup for the human person. And that
this baseline is knowable and enforceable. And that everything that falls outside of the baseline
is a disease.
And it's a disease in the same way, no different from how cancer or diabetes is a disease, and can be treated the same sort of way.
The claim is that the human mind, not just the brain, but the mind, okay, which is your consciousness, your conscious experience, can be sick in the same way that a physical part of your body is sick.
And that psychiatrists in the pharmaceutical industry have the ability to determine What is the right sort of conscious experience?
And through drugs, they can heal your conscious experience and make it go from wrong to right.
There are so many embedded assumptions in all of that.
Like, how do you know any of this?
Who are you to say?
How can you take a drug that heals your mind?
I mean, all of these questions that aren't even asked.
The Daily Mail article yesterday said that 90% of the public thinks that the chemical imbalance theory is correct, even though, as we talked about yesterday, if you'd done just a little bit of research, you would have known before this article came out that the chemical imbalance theory is unsupported.
And before doing the research, you could have thought about it and realized that, like, it doesn't really make sense anyway.
You know, one other thing that I've been hearing over the last 24 hours is that People saying, well, you know, even if the drugs don't work the way that they said that the drugs work, it still works, right?
I take it and I feel better.
But are you okay with that?
You're okay with taking a drug where the people giving it to you don't really know what it does or how it works.
It affects your mind and they don't really know how it affects your mind.
And the ways that they said it will work are wrong, because they lied to you.
But it makes you feel better, so you take it anyway.
I mean, that's an individual choice.
I'm not telling you to take it or not to take it.
But if it were me, I'd be very uncomfortable.
I'd be very uncomfortable with that.
This is me, and I confess...
Maybe I'm different from a lot of people.
I feel this way about all medication.
Not that I don't take it, but before I put anything in my body, before I take any kind of medicine at all, I need to know everything about it.
I want to know about all the side effects.
Then I want to start thinking to myself, whatever I'm trying to treat right now, is it worth the potential side effects?
Sometimes it is.
It's not like I never take medicine, but I'm always kind of skeptical.
And so if someone gave me something that's going to affect my mind and then I said, well, how does this work?
And they said, I don't know, I'm not taking that.
That's me.
Also, as just reviewed, it actually doesn't seem to work.
Like there's very good evidence that it, that it simply does not work at all.
You know, if it, if it can barely beat up a sugar pill in a trial, then that's an indication that it actually doesn't work.
What's working is your mind, actually.
You believe that you're going to feel better, and so you do.
That's your mind doing the work.
It's not the pill.
And it's a very difficult thing to judge anyway, if it works or not.
Because when we say, well, it works, what do we mean?
We mean, well, I feel better.
But do you feel better because of the chemicals in the pill, which would be the pill working?
Or do you feel better because of your belief about the pill?
Or maybe because of lifestyle changes you've made alongside of taking the pill?
Or maybe because of the therapy that you're getting alongside the pill?
How do you know that it's the pill working?
These are all interesting questions.
Um, that we should be asking and should be talking about because the, the, the second thing that I've heard quite a bit over the last 24 hours and really going back for as long as I've been talking about these issues, which I had been talking about since for as long as I've been on the public, any kind of public stage.
Uh, the other thing is that, well, this is irresponsible and reckless.
We shouldn't be talking about this at all.
Even if the pills don't work, even if it's all based on a, on a lie, don't talk about it because people will get off the pills and then they'll, and then, and then they'll harm themselves.
And so you just shouldn't talk about it.
Is that how we should treat people?
Discourage them from thinking about things, not talk about the truth around them because the truth might compel them to do something that hurts.
I mean, this is the way our so-called public health authorities treated COVID, if you recall.
Lied to us about so many things, kept the truth away from us.
Because they wanted us to act in a certain way and they had judged that the way they want us to act is the correct way and is best for us.
And so they're going to tell us whatever they need to tell us to get us to act that way.
And they're going to withhold whatever information they need to withhold to get us to act that way.
But with COVID, when we in the public found out about all the different ways that we've been lied to and all the things that were kept from us, everybody was outraged and said, no, we have a right to know the truth.
Yeah, with psychiatric medication, there are a lot of people saying, no, you know what?
Actually, keep lying to me.
I don't even want to know.
Keep lying to me.
All right, let's move to this.
All right, this is from Redux.
It says, a trans-identified male who used his own seven-year-old daughter to make sadistic child sex abuse material has quietly been transferred to the Edna Mahon Correctional Facility for women in New Jersey.
On May 6th, Marina Vols, born Matthew, was sentenced to 25 years on charges of human trafficking, aggravated sexual assault, conspiracy, and endangering the welfare of a child.
His charges had stemmed from a 2019 investigation into his conduct after the New Jersey Department of Child Protection became aware that he was creating pornography in a home where a child resided.
At the time, a search warrant had been executed at his property after it was found that the child, his own seven-year-old daughter, Had likely been exposed to sexually explicit material.
And summarizing, it turns out that it was much worse than that.
She wasn't just exposed to material, she was included in it.
She was being sexually abused on camera.
And this was a home where this seven year old girl lived in unimaginable I mean, being tortured in just unimaginable ways.
And she lived alongside four men, two of which identified as females.
And the two ones that identify as women, Marina Volz, we just heard, and another one, Ashley Romero.
So, they were all arrested, sent to prison.
And immediately, at least one of them was sent to a woman's prison.
And then Marina Volz, who is the father of this girl, I guess originally was sent to a male prison where he belongs, but then was quietly transferred to a female prison.
So here, this is a, as the headline says, sadistic, violent, sexual predator who is guilty of victimizing his own daughter.
And exploiting her and turning her into a sex slave, trafficking her.
You know, the child's a victim of sex trafficking at the hands of her own father.
And you're gonna take this guy and put him into a cell with women.
All at the behest, and why is this happening?
It's all at the behest of trans activists, of course, in order to not hurt their feelings.
This is what we are supposed to accept.
That the self-perception, the emotional affirmation of trans people is so important, is so crucial, should be such a priority, in fact should be our number one priority to the extent that in service to that self-perception we will put sex violent sex offender males in prison cells with women.
So you had this that poor seven-year-old girl who was sexually tortured for who knows how long and as a punishment we're going to take this this pedophile this creep this monster this animal and we're going to put him in a cell with another woman who he can also sexually torture.
All right, I'll try to find something a little bit lighter.
This is, although not much more, this is a news station in New Mexico had a segment with a, quote, local HR expert named Heather, and they were talking about pronouns and how important it is to use pronouns in the workplace.
Let's watch some of that.
Pronouns in the workplace.
Do you know what your coworker prefers?
Joining me today is Heather Talamante, founder of Tell Us About Yourself, Inc.
Thanks so much for joining us this morning.
Of course.
Good to have you back.
So first off, let's talk about DEI in the workplace, and that's better known as diversity, equity, and inclusion.
How do we go about the discussion of pronouns?
So essentially, the employee will reach out and say, hey, this is my preferred pronoun.
This is how I would like to be addressed in the workplace.
How we go about it is by respecting their request, right?
So you want to make sure when they say, this is what I would like to be referred to, we address it and we honor that and we moving forward use that term. Whether it's he/she, they/them,
their, whatever they would like to use. We want to make sure we honor that
request and make them feel comfortable in the workplace. Is it appropriate for someone
to ask what someone's preferred pronoun usages are? You probably wouldn't
want to ask, that person would ask you. Okay.
So, you know, if you, if they haven't fully made the decision on what pronoun they would like to use, let them come around to that decision and then ask.
If they haven't asked yet, it's not safe to assume.
We don't want to make any assumptions.
Right.
So this is going to make people be more patient or have to be patient.
You do.
You have to be patient.
If you are the employee that is asking for a new preferred pronoun or pronoun that's not necessarily natural for individuals yet, just be patient as they learned to use the new pronoun or to address you by that pronoun.
Yes, be patient with me.
That is very important.
You know, if I'm working with you and you have a new pronoun you want to use, That's the only thing I would ask, is personally, please be patient with me.
And in fact, I would have to bid that you be very patient indeed, because you'll be waiting forever for me to respect your stupid pronouns.
So you're going to have to be very, very patient.
You're going to be waiting until you die for me to care or respect your pronouns, because I never will.
Ever.
It's not going to happen.
Well, it's what makes them comfortable.
You know, it makes them comfortable.
This is what we've talked about before.
One of the worst things about this is that, one of the things that frustrates me so much and sickens me so much is that in spreading this pronoun madness, one of the ways that the left's been able to do it is by exploiting in other people what are good traits.
Most people like to be polite.
Most people want others around them to be comfortable.
In most situations, that's a positive trait.
The advantage that I have is that I don't share that positive trait, so I don't care about being polite, and I also really don't care if you're comfortable or not.
I don't live my life worrying about that.
As far as I'm concerned, it's up to you to make yourself comfortable.
How is that my concern?
So that's always been my approach, and that's why I've always been less susceptible to this.
But other people are nicer, and so they can be easily exploited.
We talk so much about how cowardice has led to the proliferation of gender ideology, and cowardice is a big part of it.
But I'm also willing to accept that for a certain number of people, Who initially went along with the pronoun stuff, wasn't so much cowardice as just, they just were trying to be nice.
And they probably didn't think about it that much, but then how quickly do they take advantage of your niceness and turn it into this?
Which is why I know it doesn't come naturally to a lot of people, and again, it's probably good if it doesn't come naturally to you, but in order to survive in this culture, And also to retain and fight for any semblance of sanity and moral decency.
Everyone needs to have a little bit of a harder edge.
And you got to get used to saying to people who tell you that what would make them comfortable, what would make them happy, you have to get used to saying to them, I don't care.
That's your problem.
No ill will.
You know, go off and try to be comfortable and happy.
But it's not my concern.
All right, a little bit more from this segment with the HR.
She's an HR expert.
I don't know if she actually works in HR.
I thought the worst thing possible is to work in HR, but she's found one level that's even worse.
You don't work in HR, you're an HR expert outside of HR.
You are the HR for HR.
We'll watch a little bit more of this.
Also, as you're learning to address an individual by a pronoun, you can always just use their first name.
Can't go wrong with their first name, right?
So, Colton is over there.
Right, right.
Colton will be here soon, so you don't have to use a pronoun at all if you're not familiar with it, if it feels unnatural.
What if someone is refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns?
And this will happen.
I will be very honest.
In the workplace, this will happen.
We have feelings about the pronoun.
We don't agree with it, so we don't know why we have to use it.
So it's important if you don't agree to still just use their first name.
This isn't something that would rise to the occasion of getting written up if you refuse to use it, but this could rise to the occasion of bullying.
That person may be repeatedly asking you, this is how I would like to be referred.
So, it wouldn't rise to the occasion of getting written up, but it would be bullying.
And then bullying gets written up.
So, ultimately, you're still going to get written up.
I do want to clarify one thing, because this is important.
She says that she allows, right?
She's willing to, she has grace enough to admit that there will be people who refuse to use the pronouns, if you can believe it.
Dear God, there are people out there who will refuse to use them.
And because they have feelings.
They have feelings about your pronouns.
And they have their own feelings and their own opinions about it, and they're against it.
Well, I want to clarify one thing.
As one of the people who will absolutely refuse to use your pronoun, it's not so much that I have feelings about your pronoun, because I'm not thinking about your pronouns at all.
I don't generate any feelings about them because I'm not thinking about them.
To say I have an opinion about it, I don't really have an opinion either about it.
It's not an opinion.
Like, if you're a man, then you're a he.
That's not an opinion.
That's just a fact.
As far as feelings, there aren't a lot of feelings about it.
I don't go around thinking about, well, what's their pronoun?
Oh, this is how I feel about that.
I just don't care.
See?
So you are coming to me.
You're the one with the feelings.
You're the one who cares.
And you are coming to me and asking me to do something.
And so it's not up to me to justify myself.
It's not up to me to have feelings about it, to explain my, quote, opinion, or anything like that.
I have lived my whole life calling men he, women she, because that's what you do, and that's how I've lived my life.
You're coming to me with a request, which is really a demand, telling me to change, telling me what you want me to do, so it's up to you to explain why I should.
The burden is on you.
Give me one good reason.
So as always, they're trying to flip it around, where we have to justify ourselves.
If we want to continue simply living in reality, where men are men and women are women, then we have to justify ourselves.
But it doesn't work that way.
I don't have to justify anything, you have to justify.
So if you're a man coming to me saying, I need you to call me a she, why should I do that?
Now, I'm listening.
I'm standing right here in front of you.
I'm not going to run away screaming.
If you have a really great argument, if you have something you could present that would make me abandon everything I know about reality and the rules of grammar, then I'm all ears.
Go ahead and tell me.
But all you have is, well, make me feel better.
Well, OK.
It wouldn't make me feel better to abandon reality.
And we're talking about what I'm doing here, not what you're doing.
So why would I do that?
All right.
As we've talked a little bit about the unintended consequences, the trade-offs, you know, when it comes to efforts by the climate alarmists and the environmentalists to supposedly save the planet.
Here's another one.
This is from the Daily Wire.
It says, A law to conserve a species of fish may have inadvertently led to a recent uptick in shark attacks in the state of New York.
Experts interviewed by the New York Post said that sharks are returning to the waters off Long Island Sound because of a boom in the population of Atlantic menhaden.
I think that's how you pronounce it.
the species of fish, which is a species of fish native to the area. That means sharks have been
approaching Long Island beaches and in the process have been coming dangerously close to, and in some
cases biting, beachgoers. And there have been, according to the executive director of the South
Fork Natural History Museum, shark research and education program, the reason why people are
interacting with sharks more often this year and more than last year is because of the conservation
efforts.
And I think it said there have been six beachgoers who have been victims of shark attacks already so far this summer in New York.
By the way, I love that euphemism.
And I like that there are people out there doing some PR cover.
For sharks by saying it's an interaction.
I had an interesting interaction with a shark today.
Then you show your bloody stump of a leg.
Now you might expect that my take here will be that the fish conservation was a bad idea because now humans are suffering from shark attacks because of it.
But I'm going to surprise you and say no, that's actually not my opinion.
That's not my take because the reason is that it's hard for me to sympathize With shark attack victims at all.
Because the act of getting into the ocean is such a strange thing to me.
It's one of the strangest behaviors that humans engage in is to get into the ocean.
You've got this massive Vat of water, hundreds of feet deep, pummeling the shore violently with waves.
This deep, dark, salty pool of death, filled with man-eating monsters and other beasts unknown to us.
We don't even know everything that's down there.
We just know that it's hideous and monstrous looking.
And you're floating around and you have all of that death underneath you.
It's impossible to know exactly what's lurking under the surface.
And our response is to get into it?
And then the worse are people that, like, if you're, if you're, if you surf or something, then I can, it's not my thing, but okay, that's a recreational activity I can sort of understand.
It does look sort of fun to do, but most people who get into the ocean, they don't even do anything.
They just kind of like stand there and let the salty water pummel them in the face for 45 minutes, and then they get out.
It's a very odd behavior.
So you are, look, when you get into the ocean, you are getting in.
This is where the sharks live.
This is their home.
They can't live anywhere else in fairness to them.
So you are entering into the home.
You are knocking on the door of Mr. Shark and saying, may I come in?
And that's, when you look at it like that, it just doesn't make a lot of sense.
All right, let's get now to the comment section.
Who's bringing shopping carts back to their rightful place?
♪ We're becoming saints ♪ ♪ Here in the Sweet Baby Gang ♪
Stephanie says, "I was a mental health nurse for 45 years and you can't imagine the amount of people treated
for normal reactions to what life throws at you."
I don't take medication and will never take it unless there is no other alternative and my life is in danger.
A powerful statement coming from, as you say, a mental health nurse.
And that's my approach to medication as well.
And that also applies to antidepressants and psychiatric medication.
Like I said yesterday, I'm not claiming that there's never an occasion where someone should take a psychiatric medication.
I'm not saying that.
I think that there are occasions where that would be necessary as a band-aid.
Okay, when you're dealing with someone who Who is in especially imminent danger to harm themselves.
You have to give them this or they're going to do something drastic.
They're going to hurt themselves or somebody else.
That would be an occasion to give medication because then it's just you got to do what anything you can do.
You have to do whatever is necessary to help that person in that moment.
But it is a band-aid.
It is not a cure.
It's not even really a treatment plan.
It's something that you do temporarily and then you transition To lifestyle changes, therapy, counseling, all of those things all together.
So that's how I can see it.
And I think there are some people that, many people that would basically agree with that and then say, well, so it's a problem of over-diagnosis.
No, it goes far beyond over-diagnosis.
When you've got, what was it yesterday, 65 million people on psychiatric medication, that's not just over-diagnosis.
Okay?
65 million.
Over-diagnosis is really understating the problem.
And it's not just over-diagnosis, it's also misdiagnosis.
Faulty diagnosis.
And treatments that are given on a faulty basis, as we've seen.
Sphere Musicful says, I tried an SSRI antidepressant and it made me severely ill to the point where I believed I was having serotonin syndrome, aka poisoning by antidepressants.
I told the doctor and she got mad at me and seemed to think that I needed to push through terrible side effects, never went back to her again.
I've heard so many stories like this.
Doctors, psychiatrists, that they put you on the pill very quickly and they actually get frustrated and upset if you try to get off of the pill.
And why do they do that?
Well, there's a financial motive, but also it is simply easier.
We heard that from the psychiatrist interviewed in the Daily Mail.
It's easier to give people a pill than to sit down and talk to them and try to work through their problems.
You might think that that's what you're supposed to do if you're in the mental health industry, but no, for a lot of these people, they want to give you the pill and then move on.
A lot easier for them.
A lot less work.
And less training needed, less skill involved.
Really, no skill involved.
So that's the incentive.
Pam says, Matt hit it right on the nail.
My daughter was bullied at school for calling someone by their wrong pronouns, even though she didn't know what the heck the person's pronouns were.
She was also asked to state her pronouns in every single class, every single day.
Needless to say, she hated school and I pulled her out as soon as I could and now homeschool.
Well, you did the right thing.
So she had to state her pronouns in every class every day.
I don't know why I'm surprised by that, but I actually am a little bit.
I didn't know it was quite that bad.
Every time I think that I've kind of got the gist of it, how bad things have gotten, I find out that it's even worse than that.
Toxic373 says, Reminder, Tom Cruise was right when he scolded Matt Lauer on the Today Show about psychiatry and antidepressants.
He actually was right.
Let's go back, because you mentioned it.
Let's go back and remember.
This was Tom Cruise back in, I think it was like 2004 or 2005.
This was a while ago.
This was over 15 years ago.
And he had this conversation with Matt Lauer on the Today Show.
about psychiatry and psychiatric medicine and depression, and he has been mocked ruthlessly for this ever since.
But it turns out he was 100% right.
Let's watch that again.
Here we are today where I talk out against drugs and psychiatric abuses of electric shocking people.
Against their will.
Of drugging children with them not knowing the effects of these drugs.
Do you know what Adderall is?
Do you know Ritalin?
Do you know now that Ritalin is a street drug?
Do you understand that?
The difference is, this was not against your will, though.
But this wasn't against Book's will.
Matt, I'm asking you a question.
I understand there's abuse of all of these things.
No, you see, here's the problem.
You don't know the history of psychiatry.
I do.
All it does is mask the problem, Matt.
And if you understand the history of it, it masks the problem.
That's what it does.
That's all it does.
You're not getting to the reason why.
There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.
I'm saying that drugs aren't the answer.
That these drugs are very dangerous.
They're mind-altering, anti-psychotic drugs.
And there are ways of doing it without that, so that we don't end up in a brave new world.
Yes, there are abuses.
And yes, maybe they've gone too far in certain areas.
Maybe there are too many kids on Ritalin.
Maybe electric shock... Too many kids on Ritalin?
I'm just saying.
But aren't there examples where it works?
You're glib.
You don't even know what Ritalin is.
If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt.
Okay?
That's what I've done.
And you go and you say, where's the medical test?
Where's the blood test that says how much Ritalin you're supposed to get?
It's very impressive to listen to you because clearly you've done the homework and you know the subject.
And you should.
And you should do that also because just knowing people who are on Ritalin isn't enough.
He couldn't be more right about everything that he said.
And what he says there at the end, though, well, just because you know someone on this drug and you say it works, that's not enough to declare that the drugs should be prescribed or that they work.
But that has always been the response.
Matt Lauer, I thought, did a very good job of playing the role of the kind of hapless, uninformed person who has dipped their toe into this issue and has a few anecdotal stories and then kind of goes along with the mainstream narrative because of it.
He's playing that role convincingly because that's who he actually is and was.
It still is, presumably.
But everything you heard from Matt Lauer in that exchange is like, I've heard the same thing so many times over the years.
You make all these points.
You have data and research about the medicines, the so-called medicines that pharma is giving out, about the psychiatric industry, the way they go about these issues.
You have your criticisms that are well thought out, based in research, based in the data.
And then what you always get in response is, yeah, but I know someone I know someone who felt better with it.
And then, well, it might be overdiagnosed, but certainly.
And then you hand, just by, with the acknowledgement that it might be overdiagnosed, you hand wave away 65 million people on psychiatric medication.
And Tom Cruise, again, has been mocked for that ruthlessly ever since.
He was 100% right.
Now, Tom Cruise is a Scientologist.
And as people have pointed out online over the last day or two, that this doesn't vindicate Tom Cruise because he's a Scientologist and his criticisms of psychiatry are rooted in Scientology.
And the part that he doesn't say is that, yeah, modern psychiatry is flawed, you shouldn't take these drugs, you should be a Scientologist instead.
That's the part he doesn't say in the interview, but that's what he means.
That's where he's leading to.
And you might be right about that.
In fact, you probably are.
Whether he is a Scientologist, and yeah, okay, so you're right about that.
It doesn't change the fact that what he says there is true.
And the fact that the kooky, crazy Scientologist has more insight into this issue and makes more sense than most other people talking about it.
The fact that the Scientologist makes more sense than most of the psychiatrists and big pharma executives on this issue, that's not embarrassing for those of us who agree with Tom Cruise.
That's embarrassing for the rest of you.
That Tom Cruise is smarter than you on this subject.
If you disagree with Tom Cruise on that, and Tom Cruise is vindicated, you should really look at yourself and ask yourself, well, how did the Scientologists get this right and I didn't?
That should be the wake-up call.
We're coming up on the first month anniversary of the launch of Daily Wire+, which is a huge milestone.
We've already outlasted CNN+, you know, so we could at least have that going for us.
And we couldn't have done it without you.
So pat yourself on the back for that.
Well done.
If you're wondering what to watch this weekend, then here's our top three choices.
You can start with my documentary, What is a Woman?
If you haven't already seen it, or if you have seen it, go ahead and watch it again.
Then in honor of his impending retirement, learn all about the person behind the mask, the most successful failure in government history in Fauci unmasked.
And for a palate cleanser, join Ben for Ben Shapiro's book club filmed in Israel as he explores Leon Uris's historical novel and international bestseller Exodus, the compelling story of an American nurse, an Israeli freedom fighter, and the rebirth of a nation That's just the tip of the iceberg.
There's so much to watch over at dailywireplus.com.
So head there now, become a member, and get 35% off your new membership.
That's dailywireplus.com today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
As we've seen, Democrats have enormous difficulty defending abortion in and
of itself, or explaining why the average American should panic over the fact that
women in some states will no longer be able to have their babies legally dismembered.
And that's why, in wake of Roe's termination, they've embarked on a desperate and far-reaching campaign to change the subject.
They've said that the end of Roe is somehow a threat to quote-unquote marriage equality.
They've said that it's even a threat to interracial marriage somehow.
And they also claim that the end of Roe will make it more difficult or even impossible for people to access contraception.
On that final note, the House of Representatives yesterday, in response to the phantom threat to birth control, voted on the Right to Contraception Act.
The measure passed with a big assist from an all-star lineup of the most useless Republican squishes to ever walk the earth, a group of eight headlined, as always, by Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and Nancy Mace.
All of these spineless lumps of sentient sludge hopped on board in an effort to protect access to birth control.
We've of course been told for many years that women are having trouble accessing contraception.
But where are these women with access problems?
I mean, where do they live exactly?
The Sahara Desert?
The moon?
Because if they live anywhere in civilization, they are surely only a few miles away from contraception at any given moment.
So if it's that important to you, you can rest assured if you live in Western civilization, you are never more than like three miles from some kind of contraception.
And you're zero miles away from the ultimate contraception, which is abstinence.
But you can buy it at gas stations, you can buy it at grocery stores, drugstores, Walmart, Target, Rite Aid, Walgreens, CVS.
You can get it for free at many medical clinics.
You can have it delivered to your door.
Many of the women who've complained about this live in cities.
They live in cities where there's just... You don't have to walk more than 15 steps to find birth control.
Earth control practically rains from the sky in our country, and I have no doubt that if it did literally rain from the sky like manna, still the left would complain about their inability to access it.
The simple act of bending down each morning to pick up the contraception bundles that are spread across the grass like dew would be too much of a burden to bear.
Until free contraception is literally placed directly in the hands of each American every day, there will be a crisis of contraception access.
And we're going to need bills like this one to address the mythical problem.
But just because this is a messaging virtue signal bill passed in response to a non-existent threat and intended to solve a problem that doesn't exist, that doesn't mean the bill would do nothing, right?
On the contrary, the legislation would, and is designed to, supersede the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, abolishing conscience rights and religious freedom where this issue is concerned, and declaring birth control, including drugs that induce abortion, a constitutional God-given right.
As John McCormick of the National Review writes, the Democrats' Right to Contraception Act explicitly condemns state conscience laws that protect health care providers who refuse to offer contraception.
As Representative Kathy McMorris-Rogers, ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, pointed out on Monday, the bill was introduced last Friday and bypassed the usual committee process where several troubling aspects of the bill could have been thoroughly debated.
For example, the bill undermines laws that protect minors, which means that under this extreme agenda, Planned Parenthood Can use taxpayer dollars to sterilize a 13-year-old without her parents' knowledge.
The text of the bill states that a person with no minimum age listed has a statutory right under this act to obtain contraceptions and to engage in contraception, and a healthcare provider has a corresponding right to provide contraceptives and information related to contraception.
Has a corresponding right.
Right?
So that means that the Planned Parenthood has a right, a God-given right, to give contraception to kids.
Of course, Democrats, they just can't help themselves but add some grooming into every bill.
And this is a classic Democrat tactic here.
Respond to the alleged radicalism on the other side by passing a bill far more radical than anything the other side ever proposed or attempted.
For her part, Nancy Pelosi said that any Republican who opposes this assault on religious liberty must not understand the birds and the bees.
I ask those who oppose contraception, again, do you even know what's going on in your own families?
Why don't you ask?
Do we need a session of the birds and the bees to talk about why this is important?
What's going on here?
Is there blind desire to have women controlled and in servitude such that they don't even want to know the truth about family planning and contraception?
Why, yes, Nancy.
Let's have that talk.
I mean, I do think some of the basics of human sexuality probably need to be reviewed.
How are babies made exactly, Nancy?
Can you explain that?
Are babies made when a man and a woman have sex, as I always thought, or can they come about some other way?
Can two men have sex and then one of the men ends up pregnant?
Can the copulation of two women lead to a pregnancy?
That's what your side believes now.
Do you believe it?
Oh, and while we're on the subject, what is conceived exactly?
What is that life form in the womb?
What do we call it?
I mean, what species is it?
Can you answer that?
Is it a human?
Life?
It seems that the birds and bees conversation is very complicated over on your side, in fact.
And if they can't explain the birds and the bees, then we can be fairly confident that they won't be able to explain concepts that are more difficult, like the concept of a human right.
Because even if you think that birth control is the greatest thing in the world, which based on the number of children I have is clearly not my view, but even if it's yours, you still cannot coherently claim that birth control is a right.
Because a right is supposed to be God-given.
It's supposed to be ingrained in our nature as human beings, fundamental to the human condition.
This is the concept of rights that lies at the foundation of our country, and it's what our entire system of government is based on.
If artificial birth control is such a right, then it would be true that nobody in any circumstance for any reason would have the right to refuse to provide it to you.
The left says that it is a right because to them, a right is simply anything they want.
If they want it, they have a right to it.
And that's why whenever you tell them that they don't have a right to something, they take it to mean that they cannot have the thing at all.
They don't recognize the distinction between a want and a right, a privilege and a right, a product they desire and a right.
So when you say, you don't have a right to that, you're saying I can't have it?
Well, no, that's not the same.
That's not the same.
They think everything is a right if they want it.
They've sought to reconfigure the whole notion of human rights in a way that does not expand our rights, actually, but rather limits our rights in favor of their ever-growing list of want-based rights.
So they abolish rights rooted in human nature, which are our actual rights, for the sake of rights rooted in desire.
Their ultimate goal is a country filled with slaves who possess no fundamental human rights, but who remain satiated because their desires are met.
That's why birth control is so important to these people, especially the ones in charge.
Comfortable, oversexed, overfed vassals.
That's what they want us to be.
That's their vision.
A brave new world, in other words.
Huxley had it right all along.
And the Right to Contraception Act is yet another step in that direction, which is why it is today cancelled.
And that'll do it for us today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great weekend.
Talk to you next week.
Godspeed.
Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
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 Vadosky, our associate producer is McKenna Waters, The show is edited by Jeff Tomlin.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
