Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Ben Shapiro traumatizes the nation’s podcasters at a podcasting convention. Mark Zuckerberg reveals that the Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed at the behest of the FBI. An investigative report proves that children’s hospitals are in fact removing the uteruses from physically healthy children. Gavin Newsom says that conservatives are big mean bullies. And the Scientific American sets out to debunk the existence of males and females.
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch my documentary “What Is A Woman?”, streaming exclusively on DailyWire+: https://utm.io/ueSX1
—
Today’s Sponsors:
With thousands of satisfied customers and an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, Birch Gold can help you protect your savings. Text "WALSH" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on The Matt Wall Show, Ben Shapiro traumatizes the nation's podcasters by attending a podcasting convention.
Mark Zuckerberg reveals that the Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed at the behest of the FBI.
An investigative report proves that children's hospitals are, in fact, removing the uteruses from physically healthy children.
Gavin Newsom says that conservatives are big, mean bullies.
And The Scientific American sets out to debunk the existence of males and females.
We'll see how they do all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
The consumer price index has reached yet another 40-year high, and the latest GDP numbers confirm
the United States is in a recession.
Despite the fact that our current administration is trying to redefine what recession means,
During the 2007 recession, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, Chrysler, multiple blue-chip stocks went down to zero overnight.
Could that happen again?
If so, how confident are you that your savings are protected?
Well, now's not the time to have all your money in the stock market or tied to the U.S.
dollar.
Take action today to protect your savings from a highly turbulent economy by diversifying at least some of your investment portfolio into gold and silver from Birch Gold.
Text WALSH to 989898 and Birch Gold will send you a free information kit on how to transition an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA in precious metals Birchgold will even help you hold gold in a tax-sheltered account.
For decades, investors have relied on gold and silver as a hedge against inflation.
Now you can do the same.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, you know that you can count on Birchgold now.
So all you got to do is text Walsh to 989898 and get help, real help, from Birchgold today.
Again, text Walsh to 989898 to claim your free, no-obligation information kit on how to protect your hard-earned savings with gold.
Well, as you all know, I am nothing if not a sunny, cheerful optimist.
I prefer to believe that we live in a world of rainbows and gumdrops.
That's just how I like to see the world.
And that's why, when I encounter abject lunacy and absurdity, I still sometimes have a hard time believing Believing it.
Believing that it's true.
There's a part of me that clings to the hope, the desperate, dying hope that the dumbest, most incorrigibly stupid things are really just a joke, a dark kind of satire.
And yet those hopes are almost always, in the end, dashed.
That brings us to the events of yesterday afternoon.
But before we get there, we've got to back up a little bit to the day before yesterday when the Podcast Movement Conference kicked off in Dallas.
This is a trade expo for podcasters organized and run by a group called Podcast Movement.
Podcasters from around the country, they come together and they talk about podcasting.
Now, frankly, as a podcaster myself, The event sounds like a nightmare.
Like, the last thing I'd ever want to do is be around a bunch of other podcasters talking about podcasting.
That's just me.
You know, The Daily Wire had a more positive attitude about it, and so the company set up a booth on the convention floor.
To be clear, we paid to set up a booth.
The money was accepted by this group podcast movement, and the booth was set up, and everything seemed to be fine.
Until tragedy struck.
Ben Shapiro showed up at the conference.
Now, he wasn't speaking there.
He wasn't presenting anything.
He just kind of showed up and said hello to people, took some pictures with fans, and then he left.
As far as I know, he didn't lash out violently at any point.
He didn't go berserk and start murdering podcasters left and right.
And even if he did, you know, there are so many podcasters in the world that honestly, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
We have enough to spare.
But that's not what happened.
He also did not, despite reports to the contrary, bite the head off of a kitten while uttering demonic incantations.
He didn't even drink blood or breathe fire.
He did none of those things, so far as I'm aware.
And yet, podcast movement the next day issued this tweet, which, when I saw it for the first time, I could only stare at it blankly for several minutes, trying to convince myself that it's supposed to be satirical.
But, alas, it is not.
They tweeted, "Hi folks, we owe you an apology before sessions kick off for the day.
Yesterday afternoon, Ben Shapiro briefly visited the PM22 Expo area near the Daily Wire booth.
Though he was not registered or expected, we take full responsibility for the harm done by his presence.
There's no way around it.
We agreed to sell The Daily Wire a first-time booth based on the company's large presence in podcasting.
The weight of that decision is now painfully clear.
Shapiro is a co-founder.
A drop-in, however unlikely, should have been considered a possibility.
Oh, but they aren't done yet.
It continues.
Those of you who call this unacceptable are right.
In nine wonderful years growing and celebrating this medium, PM has made mistakes.
The pain caused by this one will always stick with us.
We promise that sponsors will be more carefully considered moving forward.
Just to clarify, no TDW representatives were scheduled to appear on panels and Shapiro remained in the common space and did not have a badge.
If you have questions, we're here to talk.
Thank you for reading, and we hope you continue to join us from here on out.
Now, in fairness, I will admit that Ben's presence in the office causes me pain and trauma as well, but that's only because he stole my giant stuffed walrus.
If any of the people at the podcast conference even have giant stuffed walruses, theirs were home safe and not threatened by Ben Shapiro at all.
So, what was their complaint?
Well, a short time after these tweets from the podcast movement went out, The Daily Wire released video from Ben's brief time at the conference, so you can watch for yourself and decide whether this reaction from the people there was warranted.
So here's the footage, and of course, you know, it goes without saying, viewer discretion is advised.
Here it is.
Yesterday afternoon, Ben Shapiro briefly visited the PM22 Expo.
Though he was not registered or expected, we take full responsibility for the harm done by his presence.
So do I get to get a picture?
Yeah, 1, 2, 3.
God bless you.
Hey, thank you.
We agreed to sell The Daily Wire, a first-time booth, based on the company's large presence in podcasting.
The weight of that decision is now painfully clear.
[MUSIC]
During event planning, the dangerous nature of the company's messaging was overlooked.
I love what you're saying.
Those of you who called this unacceptable are right.
Podcast movement has made mistakes.
The pain caused by this one will always stick with us.
My God.
Thank you so much, I appreciate it.
Thank you, I'm excited about it.
Thank you so much.
[inaudible]
[music]
My God.
He's a monster.
Those people certainly look like they were fearing for their lives, because that's what you do
when you're deathly afraid of somebody.
You ask for a selfie.
May seem to be sort of an unorthodox strategy, but it turned out to be an effective defense mechanism.
Perhaps it's a tactic you could try the next time you're being chased through the woods by an axe murderer.
You can stop them from killing you by just asking them to pose for a picture.
Now, in any event, clearly not everybody was happy to see Ben there.
One podcaster who goes by the handle Starplanes on Twitter took a picture of Ben from a safe distance and tweeted it with the caption, hey podcast movement, what the F?
Continuing, it says, as a trans, a queer person, as someone with a uterus, this does not make me feel welcome.
This does not make me feel safe.
A short time later, StarPlanes provided this update.
Just confirm with the PodMove team that they did not know Shapiro was attending.
In fact, they were told he was not.
Him showing up was the first they knew about it.
Does that make everything okay?
No.
Am I much happier knowing he was not an invited guest?
Absolutely.
Now, you might be asking yourself, who gives a damn what Starplanes thinks?
Why is she special?
Was Ben Shapiro supposed to get special clearance from her, specifically, before simply existing within a 100-foot radius of her?
Well, yes, that's exactly what was supposed to happen, apparently.
And that's why, due to this complaint from Starplanes, and maybe a few other complaints, though that's the only one I've actually seen, the organization issued what may go down in history as the most pathetic apology of all time.
It certainly wins the title for this month, at least.
I think we can agree on that.
Now, what makes this all the more pathetic and embarrassing is that Ben Shapiro is one of the very top podcasters in the business.
The Daily Wire, as a company, is one of the top podcast publishers.
According to the latest ranking from PodTrack, we're the sixth largest publisher in the country with 72 million downloads just last month alone.
Which means we beat companies like Disney and Fox and Paramount and Cumulus.
In fact, our performance is even more impressive than that as Podrac counts us as having 12 active shows.
iHeartRadio, which is the number one publisher, has 678 active shows.
Wondery at number two has 202.
NPR at three has 46.
So we come in at number 6 with only 12, and less than half of those 12 are daily shows.
So pound for pound, in terms of the average number of downloads per show, we actually should be number 2 right behind the New York Times.
The point here is that if you're a podcaster attending a podcasting convention with podcasting talks and workshops, You should want us there.
You should be coming up to us for podcasting classes.
You should be asking us to teach our secrets.
If you see Ben Shapiro walking around, you should be coming to him for advice, not running away in fear with your hands over your ears.
Starplanes, whose real name apparently is Tal Manier, is in the podcasting business, and yet nobody's ever heard of this person.
She's had no success.
Her career has been pitiful, no offense.
But she didn't go to Ben Shapiro and say, Hi, I work in the same business as you, but I have no idea how to be successful at it.
You are much, much better at this and approximately 5 million times more successful.
Please teach me your ways.
If you want to be successful, that's what you do when you're around people who are more successful than you in the same field.
Instead, she stood off at a distance, tweeting angrily and demanding that this man who could teach her so much be escorted off the premises.
And maybe as I say this, I'm kind of explaining part of the problem.
There is no doubt a lot of jealousy at work here.
The Daily Wire is conservative, but that alone is not our sin, right?
Our sin is that we are conservative and wildly successful.
That's why they can't stand us.
In fact, they're more than happy to have conservatives who are in these same spaces but are not successful.
That's good.
But to be successful in their space, and to be more successful than them, that's just, nah, that's unthinkable.
And yet, as ridiculous as all this is, we cannot fail to notice the more serious implications.
So, it's bad enough when a conservative is judged dangerous or harmful for the opinions that he's expressing.
It's bad enough when our ideas are treated like chemical weapons.
What happened yesterday represents an escalation beyond all of that.
It's not simply Ben's opinions that are dangerous now, it is his presence.
His existence in physical space is harmful and painful.
Now, I don't think I need to spell out why this is, you know, why this is a problem.
When it's determined that a conservative's mere presence can cause harm, the stage has been set for some rather dark and terrible things.
And if I do need to spell it out, then I will say that labeling the physical presence of a group of people harmful is pre-genocide talk.
It is quite literally a justification for rounding people up and throwing them in prisons or mass graves.
And if it was just some group of fragile podcasters talking this way, it'd be nothing to worry about, but the problem is that this is increasingly the language adopted by all of the most powerful institutions in America.
That those with wrong ideas are not just wrong.
They're dangerous.
They're terrorists.
And they have to be dealt with accordingly.
And that's where all this leads.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
(upbeat music)
Well, from cringing at the pump to getting an eye popping check
at your favorite restaurant, inflation is hitting us all where it hurts.
And it really hurts.
That's why I started using UpSight.
UpSight is an incredible app for anyone who buys gas, if you buy groceries, if you dine out.
So this is just everybody, right?
With every purchase, I'm earning cash back thanks to UpSight.
UpSight is incredibly easy to use.
I get cash back every time I fill up on gas, and even at certain fast food restaurants and coffee shops.
It's not too good to be true.
It really works.
You gotta try it.
To get started, download the free Upside app, use my promo code TMWS, and you'll get $5 or more cash back on your first purchase of $10 or more.
Next, you can claim an offer for whatever you're buying on Upside.
Check in at the business, pay as usual with a credit card or debit card, and get paid.
That's how easy it is.
In comparison to credit card rewards or loyalty programs, you can earn three times more with Upside.
Upside users are earning more than a million dollars every week.
I mean, collectively, not individually, but still, it's a lot of money.
That's probably why they have a 4.8 star rating on the App Store.
Download the free Upside app and use promo code TMWS to get $5 or more cash back on your first purchase of $10 or more.
That's $5 or more cash back on your first purchase of $10 or more using promo code TMWS.
You know, the other reason, of course, why they're afraid of our presence is that these people all harbor ideas and opinions that they simply cannot defend, and they know they can't defend them.
So here's another good example of this, also from yesterday.
Andy Ngo, you all know who Andy Ngo is, he tweeted a year ago, okay, this was a year ago, he put out a tweet about Ilana McLaughlin, who's an MMA fighter, a male, who beats the hell out of females.
A year later, I guess having taken 12 months to think of a comeback, McLaughlin's trainer, who goes by the name Elias Sapita, responded to Andy Ngo a year later and says, that's right, and I'm damn proud to train her.
You cowards coming for her can come for me as well.
I'm easy to find.
And again, he's just responding to Andy Ngo pointing out that there is this male MMA fighter, Ilana McLaughlin, who's beating the hell out of females.
And then the guy's trainer comes and says, why don't you come say that to my face, right?
Well, I saw this and rather than taking another year to continue the conversation, I decided to speed the pace up a little bit and I responded to him and I said, is this challenge open to anyone?
I'd love to talk to you and give you the opportunity to defend your position on transgenderism in women's sports.
Also would love to get your definition of the word woman.
Let's set it up.
And I thought, you know, this is a tough guy.
He was just, he was just tweeting, saying, anyone can come for me.
Bring it!
And I said, OK, let's do it.
In person, you know, we could set something up.
Whatever you want to do.
Well, it took him a day to get back to me.
Pretty fast turnaround for him.
So he's working a little bit faster.
Give him some credit for that.
It only took him a day to put this together.
I don't defend or debate that trans women are equal to cis women and deserving of equal rights, professional opportunities, and pursuits of happiness.
Anyone wanting to challenge that is denying a group of people's humanity.
And I don't treat such people as good faith actors.
Of course.
Of course you don't.
You pathetic, gutless little coward.
You absolute wimp.
And of course, people in the comments, some of his supporters were saying, oh, he didn't mean challenge to a debate.
OK, what kind of challenge was he talking about?
What, punching?
We could punch each other?
I mean, I would fully admit if you're an MMA fighter and we got into a contest about who could punch the other person better, you'd probably win that fight.
The problem, though, is that that wouldn't do anything to prove the legitimacy of your ideas.
OK?
And if you're interested in that, and especially if I'm a bad faith actor, I'm just a bigot, my ideas are totally indefensible, right?
I mean, that's what you believe?
Why would you forego the opportunity to humiliate me?
How easy, if I'm just a bigot, bad faith actor, I hate trans people, how easy would it be to totally humiliate me?
We sit down across from each other.
It could be a live stream, no edits.
You could utterly embarrass me.
And especially if you have a definition for the word woman that still validates your point of view.
I've set this whole challenge up around what is a woman.
If you could actually answer the question, how embarrassing would that be for me?
Doesn't want to take advantage of the opportunity.
Interesting.
See, for me, on this side, being on the right side, I will talk to literally anyone.
I am not afraid to talk to anyone.
I don't care who you are.
Pull in any expert, doctor, scientist, I don't care.
I'll sit down and talk to you.
Anyone.
On their side, they take the exact opposite approach.
They won't talk to anybody.
They don't even want to be in the same room.
All right, let's start here.
Daily Wire has a report.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed Thursday on the Joe Rogan experience that the FBI approached the social media company during the 2020 presidential election and pushed them to crack down on alleged Russian propaganda before the Hunter Biden laptop story was published by the New York Post.
Zuckerberg made the remarks when asked by host Joe Rogan how Facebook handled big news items that were controversial.
We actually have the clip, so let's play some of that.
How do you guys handle things when they're a big news item that's controversial?
Like, there was a lot of attention on Twitter during the election because of the Hunter Biden laptop story, the New York Post.
Yeah, so you guys censored that as well?
So we took a different path than Twitter.
I mean, basically the background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us, some folks on our team, and was like, hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert.
We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election.
We have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump of That's similar to that.
So just be vigilant.
So our protocol is different from Twitter's.
What Twitter did is they said you can't share this at all.
We didn't do that.
Pause there for a second.
The first question you hear, so the FBI went to Facebook and said, be on the lookout for misinformation.
Why is the FBI dealing with this?
I mean, leaving aside for a moment that the so-called misinformation they're suppressing is not misinformation and is actually true information, even leaving that aside, what does the FBI have to do with misinformation?
People are saying wrong things on the Internet, and that's an FBI problem now?
We need the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate wrong opinions on the Internet?
If that's what the FBI is doing, then they could never do anything but that.
Because the internet is full of wrong opinions.
But for some reason, the FBI is involved.
Let's keep listening.
What we do is we have, if something is reported to us as potentially misinformation, important misinformation, we also have this third-party fact-checking program because we don't want to be deciding what's true and false.
And for the, I think it was five or seven days when it was basically being determined whether it was false.
The distribution on Facebook was decreased, but people were still allowed to share it.
So you could still share it, you could still consume it.
So when you say the distribution has decreased, how does that work?
Basically, the ranking in News Feed was a little bit less.
So fewer people saw it than would have otherwise.
By what percentage?
I don't know off the top of my head, but it's meaningful.
A lot of people were still able to share it.
We got a lot of complaints that that was the case.
You know, obviously this is a hyper-political... He thinks that this was the better approach, so he's proud of the fact that, well, we didn't take it down completely.
Infamously took the story down.
I think they suspended the New York Post for a period of time for even posting at the beginning.
And you weren't allowed to share it at all.
And even if you try, New York Post couldn't put it out.
And no other accounts could put it out.
That's how Twitter handled it.
Mark Zuckerberg says, no, you were allowed to share it.
We just manipulated the news feed so that fewer people saw it.
And this is supposed to be better, I guess, he thinks.
But if anything, it's worse.
Because at least on Twitter, what they're doing is out in the open.
The bias is out in the open.
Everybody knows it.
And at the very least, we can say that.
Doesn't make it okay or any better, but it's a public thing and we all know they're doing it.
When you're manipulating it behind the scenes so no one even knows that you're doing it, that's a lot worse.
That's more insidious.
Not better.
But that still doesn't answer the question of why the FBI was getting involved to begin with.
And, well, we know the answer to that question.
Because the FBI was interested in making sure the Democrats won the presidential election.
I mean, the FBI is going to the social media platforms and telling them what sort of information they're supposed to suppress on their platforms.
This is election rigging.
Yes, the 2020 election was rigged in part by the FBI, according to what we just heard there.
It's a huge scandal.
I mean, this is actually an enormous, mind-blowing scandal.
But you know what else?
No one's going to be talking about it 45 minutes from now.
It's a huge scandal that, well, the mainstream media doesn't want to talk about it at all.
But in general, people would just move on from it a day later.
Not even talk about it anymore.
Do you remember the Trump raid?
Remember that?
Remember that back from ancient history?
And that was the biggest story in the world?
Across right-wing and left-wing media?
Biggest story.
Unbelievable.
The FBI raided Trump.
This is gonna change the outcome of the midterm elections.
Like, the midterm elections are gonna be about this now, everybody thought.
Three days later, no one's talking about it.
Nobody.
That's one of the great problems I think we face as a society, and it can't all be pan- I mean, part of it is the media.
You know, the media likes to move stories along quickly, especially if they're stories that aren't favorable to their agenda.
So, that's part of it, but it's not just the media.
It's really, it's like, this is an everybody problem, where we can't stay focused on one thing for more than a day.
And so, stories and issues that are really important, they'll get the attention they deserve for a brief sliver of time, and then the next day it's like, okay, what's the new thing?
I'm already bored.
All right.
And having said that, now I'm going to move on to the next story.
Okay, Gavin Newsom in California had some thoughts about Ron DeSantis.
Especially after DeSantis insulted elves yesterday by comparing Fauci to them, and Gavin Newsom didn't like that.
Well, he was offended for a different reason.
Let's listen to him.
I don't like bullies.
You want to ask what my why is in life?
I don't like bullies.
I don't like people that demean people.
I don't like people that talk down to people.
I didn't like what DeSantis said about Fauci, that he may disagree with him, but to call someone pejorative terms because they're short?
Who the hell raised these guys?
What kind of people are they?
I mean, I know all of us had to, you know, sit there and suck it up and take Trump's demonization, but not everybody has to act like him.
I mean, literally, I remember growing up and folks would have their mouths washed out with soap if they talked like this.
I got four kids.
I don't want these guys being models.
You're attacking LGBT community.
You're attacking women.
I mean, this guy's so extreme.
Rape and incest.
Ron DeSantis talks about freedom and a young girl's raped by her father.
Doesn't have the right to her own body to make her own decisions?
Spare me freedom!
There's no freedom, there's no choice.
So yeah, I'm standing up as a human being.
Got to use those dollars and I hope others of you send money to send a message that if that's the future of the damn Republican Party, this country's in real trouble.
I like how by the end it just devolved into shouting talking points at random.
So it started relatively coherently, relatively, but by the end he's just like, I mean, LGBT community?
Women?
Bigotry!
Extreme!
Rape and incest?
Freedom!
Climate change!
He's like some kind of woke baby doll where you press his stomach and he says a programmed phrase, only the doll's malfunctioning now.
As for the stuff at the beginning about being a bully, well, you know, sure.
I'm actually okay with that.
I think when you're on the side accusing the other side of being a bully, it means you're losing.
That's the loser claim in politics.
People coming out calling Ron DeSantis a bully, that is a sign of his success.
That's what the losers do.
Oh, you're being a bully.
You're being mean.
You're losing.
If that's your criticism.
And you know what?
Yeah, you're right.
See, this is the new right, as opposed to the old establishment right.
And on the new right, yeah, we're going to be bullies.
And we don't care if you call us that.
Because we're not going to put up with it anymore.
And we also don't care about the labels that you use.
We don't care if your feelings are hurt.
We don't.
And we're not going to give you respect you don't deserve.
Why did Ron DeSantis talk about Fauci that way?
Because Fauci deserves no respect at all.
He has no respect for him.
I mean, Fauci should be in prison.
He's not going to be in prison, so the least we could do is insult him.
Well, he deserves it.
You don't like that kind of language?
Okay, deal with it.
I don't care.
So we're drawing hard lines here.
Yeah, maybe we're gonna be We're gonna use tougher language than what you're used to hearing from the other side because what you're used to from the other side is that you could say whatever the hell you want and insult your opponents the kingdom come and They're not gonna respond in kind because they're too worried about but we're gonna be dignified But for them dignified is is the same as just being a coward they don't see a difference between the two We're not playing that game anymore So, yeah, we're being bullies.
You deserve to be bullied.
And they can get away, right, with insulting the other side all they want, because their insults are, oh, you're a racist, you're a bigot, you're this and that.
And that doesn't count as an insult because that's, I guess, what the media says.
That's just an accurate description.
So that's how they see it, right?
That's really how they see it.
They can say whatever they want about us and treat us any way they want to because we deserve it.
That's the difference.
So they can say something about us.
And then we can say the exact same thing about them, and they have the right to be offended.
Well, how could you talk this way?
Well, back in my day, you get your mouth washed out with soap.
Even when you talk the exact same way, but in your mind, see, they rationalize it by saying, well, yeah, but you deserve it.
You're a terrible person.
But you can't say that to me.
I'm perfect.
And for so many years, they've gotten away with that.
Because the right, by and large, has just cooperated.
As if to agree.
As if to agree that, you know what, yeah, you deserve more respect than you give us.
What?
No.
Those days are over.
Hate to tell you, Gavin.
Who, by the way, you look a little bit like an elf, too.
I just thought I'd note.
Alright, I want to make sure we have some time for this.
Libs of TikTok doing some investigative journalism.
One of the only people in the country doing actual investigative journalism.
And what she's doing here is You know, you would think that if there were real journalists working for these supposed news outlets, that one of them would have done this.
Given that there's this conversation about children's hospitals and so-called gender-affirming surgeries and procedures, and which of those procedures do they inflict on minors, and which do they reserve for adults?
Well, a good way to find out is to just call them, not as a member of the media, but just call them and ask.
That's exactly what Libs of TikTok did.
And let's start going through this audio here.
This is what, by the way, this is the, I don't know if I mentioned, this is the Children's Hospital.
What is this?
Children's National Hospital in DC.
Okay.
Thank you for calling National Hospital.
Your call may be recorded for quality assurance.
I was calling for information about gender-affirming hysterectomies.
Okay, so gender-affirming hysterectomies.
I've been in touch with quite a few hospitals and a lot of them, well, they said they won't do it for my 16-year-old and then I was told that this hospital might, and I also saw it on your website, so if you guys do do it for a 16-year-old, I would be happy for, you know, to come for a consultation or whatever it takes.
Let me get you over to the operator, and I hate to transfer you.
I just, I just need to want to know if you guys do service at age, you know, before, obviously, before coming, you know, coming all the way for an in-person consult and going through all the paperwork and everything.
Well, yeah, it depends.
Each department's different.
Some departments cut off at 18.
How old is your patient? 16.
Okay, alright, so they're in the clear.
I'll email Dr. Call and see what we can do.
In the meantime, if you still want me to transfer you, I can still transfer you to surgery.
Alright, so pause it there for a sec.
So, we've already heard from the operator.
Oh, well, she said it very clear.
You're in the clear.
At the age of 16, you're in the clear.
Now, this is very different.
If you were to call, and this is the investigation that media outlets have done, Where, as members of the media, they call the hospital's PR department and say, hey, you're being criticized for doing this awful thing.
Do you actually do that thing?
And then the hospitals say, no, no, we don't do that.
And then the media says, well, you see, there it is.
They would never lie to us.
End of discussion.
But if you call them as a potential patient-slash-customer willing to give your money, you get a very different answer.
Conversation continues.
Let's play a little bit more of this.
Hi, I was calling because I'm looking for information about the gender-affirming hysterectomies that you guys offer.
Am I in the right place?
So, I was just wondering, I've contacted quite a few hospitals already.
It seems like it's difficult to find one that does the operation for my 16-year-old and I was told that you guys do do that.
So, If you do it for 16-year-olds, then yes, I'd love to schedule an appointment, a consultation, whatever you need.
If you don't mind me asking, what did your child's gender change into?
So I can point you to the right direction.
Wait, pause it there for a second.
What did your child's gender change into?
This is someone at the hospital, in the relevant department, asking that question.
What did your child's gender change into?
What?
What does that mean?
And by the way, because they're right, there's not just two options.
So hysterectomy means that we're dealing with a girl, we can assume.
So maybe the hospital worker knows that much.
But she's not a girl anymore.
But maybe not a boy.
she could be something else.
It's also like, why does that matter to you?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
I mean, is there... What difference does that make?
Anyway, let's continue.
Yeah, well, he transitioned to male.
You know, he already had the top surgery, and now we're looking for the hysterectomy.
Okay, beautiful.
So I'm going to transfer you to the GYN nurse line.
One of the nurses will give you a call to give you more information and to let you know the steps and the protocol that they do for that, okay?
Okay, so they would do it for that age?
Yes.
Alright, there you go.
That's it.
Good.
So, confirmed with two people, the hospital operator and then someone in the relevant department, yes, they do gender-affirming, quote-unquote, hysterectomies for 16-year-olds, right there, from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Now, this was published, and shortly after that, Children's National Hospital put out a statement.
And here's their statement.
We are aware of the audio recording circulating on Twitter.
Here are the facts.
We foster a welcoming and inclusive environment for all, serving our LGBTQ plus patients and families in the full spectrum of their care.
We do not provide gender-affirming surgery for anyone under the age of 18.
We do not provide hormone therapy to children before puberty begins.
Care is individualized for each patient and always involves families making decisions in coordination with a team of highly trained pediatric specialists.
Now, once again, the media is taking that and saying, well, see, debunked.
We have on tape the people at the hospital saying, yes, we do that for 16-year-olds.
So, either the hospital is lying now in an effort to cover their ass, which, by the way, that's the correct answer here, or the people at the hospital were lying.
Someone's lying.
The hospital is lying one way or another.
The person who wrote this statement was lying, or the people at the hospital that you heard in the clip there, they were lying.
I mean, does the hospital have a policy against doing gender-affirming hysterectomies for 16-year-olds, and yet they were going to do it anyway?
Well, that's a scandal, too.
I mean, no matter what, the hospital doesn't come out clean here.
And yet the kind of hopeless feeling that you get, as always, is that even though it's right there, plain as day, it just doesn't matter.
No further investigation from any relevant authority.
This is in D.C.
Okay?
The mayor of D.C.
is not going to put any pressure on this.
The police aren't going to show up.
And really the entire statement is mind-boggling.
What about this part here?
We do not provide hormone therapy to children before puberty begins.
Okay?
What's the significance of that?
You don't provide hormone therapy to children before puberty begins, but you do provide it after puberty begins, or when puberty is beginning.
They're still children though, aren't they?
This is something that I've heard from trans activists actually, not the first time, this is something I've heard frequently over the last few weeks especially, as they've been denying that these things are done to children at all.
And I've heard this.
Well, this isn't done to children.
This doesn't happen until puberty.
What do you mean?
So we're talking about 11 and 12 year olds or even younger.
You don't see them as kids?
Well, the answer is they don't.
And now you start to get the full picture.
Maybe you start to understand what's really going on here.
And this is how this all gets wrapped in with the normalization of pedophilia.
There's a reason why that is happening.
Kids at drag shows and all the rest of it, the sexualization of children, the normalization of pedophilia, this is all happening at the same time as the gender-affirming surge or so-called gender-affirming surge.
All this is happening.
It's all part of the same program.
Because you can hear them saying it right there.
It's like, well, actually, you know, 12-year-olds aren't even children.
As you can see, they're setting the stage here.
And then let's also keep in mind, and I think it's important to expose the fact that they're lying about the hysterectomies.
And I'm glad that we have this investigation that confirms that.
But let's also not allow them to make the whole conversation about the hysterectomies.
Because it is probably true that most hospitals and clinics in America, at least officially, don't perform that particular procedure on minors.
That's probably the case.
At least not officially.
That is only a small portion of the overall picture here.
They all do top surgery.
They all do double mastectomies on kids.
All of them do.
That's not any better.
So what they're saying is, we will mutilate certain parts of the child's body, but then other parts we wait until, you know, right when they turn 18.
That is not better at all.
That is not a good excuse.
Not even close to a good excuse.
So let's not let... They want the whole conversation to be focused around the hysterectomies because they feel like they're on the safest ground there.
Although the whole concept of gender-affirming a hysterectomy is horrifying, they know that, like, generally, that is, that they do wait till 18 for that.
They don't want to talk about the top surgeries.
Because they're doing that to 13-year-olds.
All right.
One other thing I've had here on the docket for a while, I wanted to mention.
A Boeing 737 belonging to Africa's largest airline remained 37,000 feet in the air when it was supposed to be landing at its intended destination earlier this week, reportedly because the pilots had fallen asleep.
Air traffic control officials attempted to contact the pilots multiple times when they noticed that the Ethiopian Airlines plane flying from Sudan to Ethiopia wasn't descending.
But the crew failed to respond, and then it turned out that they had fallen asleep.
And eventually, a few minutes later, they did actually land the plane.
Now, the reason I mention this is that this is actually a serious problem.
Of pilots falling asleep at the wheel, as it were.
And, you know, you've always had the problem, pilot exhaustion has always been an issue, but especially recently, even more so.
And you hear this from pilots.
In fact, in this Daily Wire article, they go on to talk about the overall problem of, in the airline industry in America and across the world, of pilot exhaustion, pilots being overworked.
This is a big problem, especially recently.
I told you about You know, a few months ago I was at an airport and I heard two pilots complaining about this.
I was sitting at the airport listening to these two pilots complain about how tired they were and how overworked they were.
And I'm listening to this and I'm becoming a communist on the spot.
I'm like, you guys need to organize.
Workers, unite.
Give me a picket sign and I'll march with you.
Because when it comes to pilots, my attitude is, please just give them everything they want.
Pay them millions of dollars, give them lots of time off.
Pete Buttigieg got six months off from maternity leave, despite not doing anything in his job.
Airline pilots deserve at least as much.
Mental health breaks.
Okay, for them, I say give them everything they want.
Meet every demand.
I want pilots to be well-rested and happy.
That's all I want.
I only want well-rested, very happy and satisfied people flying the plane that I'm in.
Whatever it takes.
But the problem is that there is this pilot shortage, which is only exacerbating the problem of pilot exhaustion.
And part of the reason for that, we're told, is the pandemic.
We're still recovering from the pandemic, but it's not actually a pandemic.
It's the pandemic response, as always, is contributing to this problem.
And what happened?
During COVID, you may remember, the taxpayers gave, as a gift, that we had no choice in, we had no choice in this, but we were required to give a gift to the airline industry, billions and billions of dollars, an airline industry bailout.
We were told we had to do this, because if we didn't, the airline industry would collapse, and then we wouldn't be able to travel anymore, it would be a total catastrophe.
Well, the airline industry, they took all that money And they were supposed to use it to retain staff.
That's the reason we gave it to them.
So that you didn't have a whole bunch of pilots quitting and everything.
You don't have anyone left to fly the planes.
But instead they did the exact opposite.
And they used the money as retirement packages for pilots to incentivize early retirement.
And so a whole bunch of pilots just retired and took the money and ran.
And now we don't have enough people to fly the planes.
And the people that are left are being overworked and they're totally exhausted.
And, you know, eventually there's going to be, there's going to be, a plane's going to crash and a lot of people are going to die eventually because of this.
And it all goes back, as always, you know, it's a combination.
When bureaucracies collide, you have the airline industry bureaucracy colliding with the government bureaucracy and it creates problems just like this, as always.
Let's get now to the comment section.
Alright, before we get into this, you know, we've been following the dramatic story of Walrusgate, and I told you yesterday that this scandal goes right to the top, and Ben Shapiro's already getting a lot of heat.
And I don't mean to add to it, but I am going to add to it, because this producer sent me this.
This is a totally real... I guess he was asked about, at some point, about the giant walrus, and this is a totally real hot mic moment that was sent to me.
I can't tell you who my source is, but here it is.
Hey man, do you know where Matt's walrus is?
No.
He's getting pretty upset about it.
Tell him to get the f*** back to work.
That hurts.
I do.
I understand.
I actually understand.
I take back everything I said at the beginning of the show.
The whole monologue.
I retract it.
I totally understand how the people at the podcast convention felt.
It's painful.
Let's see.
Lutha Sunspe- What the hell was that?
The studio is actually physically falling apart at this exact moment.
What was that?
Hopefully it wasn't the roof caving in.
Alright.
Maybe you'll get to see me die on camera.
That'd be an interesting show.
Probably my most viewed show ever, and my last one.
Lutha Sunspell says, Matt, your analysis of the emptiness of social media obsession, the emptiness it brings, was spot on.
I avoided social media for a long time due to having a stalker, but then recently dipped my toe in using pseudonyms.
I've noticed just using Twitter can depress me when I get called a bot or a troll.
However, you did say women don't quit get over stabbing their friends in the back until they're 60 or 70, so you're cancelled.
This is like saying all men are perverts after the 80s because Michael Jackson was
I don't think I said all women stab each other in the back.
I just you know there's there's a certain like Ebb and flow to female relationships with each other and
that's it. It's an ebb and flow. I think you would agree as
In terms of social media. Yeah, this is the thing if you if you
You know we all have this internet addiction Almost all of us suffer from it to one extent or another.
There are a few exceptions, but most of us suffer from it.
If you pull yourself away from it, though...
You pull yourself away from, like, when you're in the flow of it, you feel this constant compulsion to pull out the phone, check social media.
But if you pull yourself away from it, if you go on vacation or something, you go stay up in a lake house or in a mountain where there's no signal and you don't have access to the phone for a week or two weeks, You come back and it's like, you have to almost, you almost are forcing yourself to get back into the internet world.
And so you have this moment of clarity where you see how empty and pointless this all is.
But then, that just, it dissipates pretty quickly and now, and you're sucked right back into it again.
It's a sad story, but that's the way it goes.
Nana and Epaw says, quick question in regards to the mountain backdrop.
Will you be changing it for each season?
What are you talking about?
Well, if the season changes, then obviously you're going to see the background change.
A completely real background.
Jesse says, did Matt just say clout?
You, sir, are unfortunately banned from your own show.
Well, no, I think that clout chasing is a useful modern phrase.
First of all, clout is not a modern term.
Okay, that's existed for a long time.
But clout chasing, it's one of the few modern terms, internet lingo, that I'll use because I think it's useful.
It's even more useful than virtue signaling, I think, as a term.
Emily says, Matt, You're a media guy, and you come off extremely out of touch on the student loan issue.
I'm not a Biden fan at all, but student debt has been a huge problem, and I'm grateful for the relief.
I think a lot of people feel the same way.
Republicans need to change their messaging on this topic ASAP.
Okay, so what you're saying, your argument, if I can call it that, is that you personally benefit from it.
You know, you're getting $10,000 shaved off of your loan, and you like that.
Because it means you owe less money.
And that's your argument.
That's not an argument.
Like, I understand that from a kind of self-centered perspective.
You're getting $10,000, okay.
But do you see how that's not really an argument?
The fact that you personally enjoy getting this money is not... That's not a justification for the policy.
And that does nothing to address The objections that I and others have raised.
And the objections are largely, well, a lot of it has to do with the economy, inflation, but it's largely centered around the burden being felt by other people.
So, what you are saying is, well, I personally care more about my own financial security than other people.
I get that.
But from a policy perspective, you have to take into account everybody, not just you, Emily.
As far as Republicans changing their message, I actually don't disagree with you there.
I think one of the reasons why Republicans lose on this topic and so many others, but Republicans are losing on the student loan question, student loan forgiveness.
Part of the problem is that Republicans tend to support, you know, Reckless spending, bailouts, let's send billions to Ukraine.
Most Republicans are on board with that.
And so they don't have the credibility to criticize this kind of spending.
Republicans always complain about spending, but when they're actually in charge, they don't do a damn thing about it ever.
And so, yes, it does make them less credible when they raise objections to a student loan bailout.
But that's just an argument for being more consistent.
It's an argument for opposing more forms of government spending, not simply accepting this form of it.
Is it ironic to make an ad for an ad-free viewing experience?
Maybe.
Well, no, it's not.
It's not what irony is.
But anyway, that's exactly the type of experience you'll get when you subscribe to DailyWire+.
This is our growing hub for all things DailyWire, where you'll find shows and podcasts like this one, plus movies, bonus content, and coming soon kids content also.
DailyWire+, it's everything you love about DailyWire+, plus so much more.
And you don't get the ads either, so you get much less ads.
Go to dailywireplus.com to become a member today and get 35% off your new membership.
That's dailywireplus.com.
Now, let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
Now, the Scientific American has been around for a very long time, since the mid-1800s, in fact.
It's one of the very oldest media outlets in the country.
And for much of that run, it was considered credible and reputable, a trustworthy source for science-related news.
A great number of famous scientists have written articles for it over the years.
Even Albert Einstein can be counted among its contributors.
But those days are over.
Albert Einstein is long dead, and if he were not dead today, he would wish he was, because the far-left religious cult has infiltrated and corrupted nearly everything in society, especially the media and the field of science.
So if you combine those two things in a scientific media outlet, You're sure to get the worst of both worlds.
And that is certainly the case with Scientific American.
Case in point, this week the outlet debuted the second episode in their docuseries titled, A Question of Sex.
In a tweet thread about the series, Scientific American makes clear that the purpose of the documentary is to debunk the myth of the two sexes.
The myth, they say.
Yes, sexual dimorphism, one of the most fundamental concepts in human biology, and something that no credible scientists anywhere in the world, ever in history, have ever questioned, is now a myth.
In an article on the website about the documentary, it's explained that the sex binary is false Because of the existence of intersex people.
We're told, "Intersex is an umbrella term for variations in reproductive or sexual anatomy
that may appear in a person's chromosomes, their genitals or internal organs, and it has been
estimated to include about 1.7% of the population. There are more than 30 medical terms for different
combinations of sex traits that fall outside of the typical male and female paths of development."
The article goes on to explain that the alleged existence of these 1.7% of intersex people
throws the whole notion of the sex binary into question.
The article ends with a quote from a so-called intersex activist named Sean Saifa Wall, and it says, After all, the fixation on a sex binary in science, Wall points out, doesn't occur in a vacuum.
Quote, I think for people asking the question, is your child a boy or a girl, I would really challenge them to just take a moment and ask, why?
Why is it so important?
Are you just happy to have a baby?
Are you just happy to start a family?
I think those are quality-of-life questions that often get overlooked or missed in this conversation.
Yes, why do you care if your child is a boy or a girl?
Why do you care if your child is human?
Why do you care about any of the basic physical details of your child?
Why can't you raise and parent him as if he was an ambiguous, nondescript lump of sentient matter?
Pretend that he's just an amorphous puddle of cells and DNA.
That's all that matters.
Makes perfect sense.
A clip from the documentary provides more completely imaginary, by the way, details.
Let's watch.
While gendered social structures are ancient, a binary framework of biological sex didn't actually exist in Western culture until the late 18th century.
Before, science recognized only one sex, the male, and considered the female body an inferior version of it.
The shift that historians call the two-sex model served mainly to reinforce gender and racial divisions by tying social status to the body.
Okay, so let's go over a few things here.
First of all, we must always keep in mind that the only reason anybody ever talks about intersex is to validate transgenderism.
That's the only reason Scientific American is running this series.
It's the only reason they jam intersex onto the pride flag.
It's the only reason they include intersex in the LGBT alphabet soup.
Intersex is a medical condition that has nothing to do with LGBT.
But it's included, and in fact given pride of place, simply because people who suffer from this particular genetic deformity are useful to the trans agenda.
Never mind that trans and intersex have nothing in common, and that the existence of intersex people does not even come close to validating the claims and self-perceptions of trans people, but it's important to understand why they're talking about intersex at all, because then it makes sense why they lie about it so much.
For instance, in the passage from the article that we read, They say 1.7% of people are intersex.
Now, if you're a person with common sense, you hear that figure, and you feel immediately skeptical.
1.7%?
Really?
I mean, that's still a minority, percentage-wise, but that would translate to, like, 6 million people in this country alone.
Are there really 6 million intersex people walking around in this country?
Well, no.
That number is a lie.
Because everything these people say is a lie.
They lie with abandon about everything all the time.
Colin Wright looked into this subject a couple of years ago and discovered that the 1.7% figure comes from a book written by a woman named Anne Fausto-Sterling, who had an ideological axe to grind.
She wanted to disprove the sex binary, and she did it by wildly inflating the number of intersex people that exist in the world.
Reading from Wright's column, it says, they broadly define an intersex person as, quote, An individual who deviates from the platonic ideal of physical dimorphism at the chromosomal, genital, gonadal, and hormonal levels.
To arrive at their 1.7% figure, they asked how frequently humans deviate from this platonic ideal.
In the review, their ideal male is defined as somebody with XY chromosomes, Functional testes located in the scrotal sac, a penis between 2.5 and 4.5 centimeters at birth, and a completely enclosed urethra that opens at the tip.
The ideal male must also have testes that produce malarian inhibiting factor as well as testosterone and Dihydrotestosterone, there we go, and juvenile testicular activity must result in typical masculinizing puberty.
Their ideal female has two X chromosomes, functional ovaries that result in normal feminizing puberty, intact oviducts attached to a functional uterus, cervix, and vaginal canal.
The ideal female must also have labia minora and majora present, and a clitoris that ranges from 0.2 centimeters and 0.85 centimeters in length at birth.
Okay.
You see the problem, hopefully.
They are including in their definition of intersex people, people who deviate from their definition of the platonic ideal, and yet whose sex is not at all ambiguous or in question.
So, they came up with what they consider to be the platonic ideal of maleness, and anyone who deviates from it slightly is intersex.
So a male who is clearly and unambiguously male, and yet has a smaller penis than a normal penis, or problems with the testes or the urethra, ends up counted as intersex by their definition.
This is just completely ridiculous.
And that's why if you apply a more precise definition of the word intersex, you find that the actual number of intersex people is lower than .02%.
That is 100 times less than the estimate Scientific American provided.
And when you realize that the actual intersex population is so minuscule, the attempts to use it as a chainsaw to cut to pieces the sex binary become even more obviously ludicrous.
Intersex people are anomalies.
They suffer from an unfortunate medical condition.
Their existence does not destabilize or throw into question the notion of biological sex as we've always understood it.
We are still left in a world where everybody in principle either has the capacity to get pregnant or the capacity to impregnate others.
Now, disease, deformity, or old age may interfere on an individual level with those capacities, but the principle remains.
Just a few days ago, I read a story about a two-headed kitten that was born in Arkansas.
Now, it's an interesting and sort of grotesque medical anomaly, but does it mean that we can no longer say kittens have one head?
Must we now define kittens as creatures with multiple heads?
Must we start talking about kittens like they're mythical beasts, like a kitten is a hydra from Greek mythology?
No, of course not.
Now, what about the claim in the video that the sex binary didn't exist until the 18th century, and before that there was only one sex?
Well, that's just pure fiction.
That's invented on the spot, and with nothing to support it.
Read literally anything, anything at all, I mean, seriously, anything, written at any time before the 18th century, and this claim falls apart all at once.
The book of Genesis was written thousands of years ago, and yet says at the very beginning, male and female he created them.
Indeed, every ancient religion has an account of creation, and they all account for the creation of males and females.
Not one sex, not three, not seven, not 52, not an infinite variety, but two.
Because that's all there was at the time, or is now, or ever will be.
Now, I would say more to debunk this particular claim, but it would be like trying to debunk the claim that watermelons are actually dragon eggs, and if you sit on them, a baby dragon will hatch.
It's just there's not much that can be said to refute a purely fictional claim invented out of whole cloth and with not the slightest bit of evidence to support it, worse than having no evidence actually, all of the evidence we do have, and there's a lot of it, directly flies in the face of what they're saying.
Everything we know about ancient history and about past and current non-Western cultures confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt that the sex binary is not a modern Western invention.
Gender fluidity is the modern Western invention.
And it's now being peddled by a magazine that once concerned itself with science, but now would rather tell fables.
And for that reason, Scientific American is today cancelled.
And that will do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the member section, hope to see you there.
