Ep. 1021 - Public School Sex Ed Teaches 'Porn Literacy'
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, sex ed curricula in public schools now include lessons on “porn literacy.” Also, Lindsey Graham proposed a federal abortion ban right before the midterms. I’ll tell you why, as a diehard pro-lifer, I do not support this move. Plus, Dr. Phil takes on the abortion issue. Jimmy Kimmel is finally accused of racism, but not because of all the blackface he’s done. And in our Daily Cancellation, we have our most creative attempt yet to solve the What Is A Woman riddle.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the brand new DailyWire+ show CANDACE OWENS on DailyWire+, or listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Get the brand new Johnny the Walrus Plushie here: https://bit.ly/3CHeLlu
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Frontpage Magazine has spent over two decades combating the radical Left's efforts to destroy America. Check out Frontpage Magazine at FrontPageMag.com
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, sex ed curricula in public schools now includes lessons on porn literacy.
We'll have to talk about that, unfortunately.
Also, Lindsey Graham proposes a federal abortion ban right before the midterms.
I'll tell you why, as a diehard pro-lifer myself, I do not support this move.
Plus, Dr. Phil takes on the abortion issue.
Also, Jimmy Kimmel is finally accused of racism, but not because of all the blackface he's done in the past.
And in our daily cancellation, we have our most creative attempt yet to solve the what is a woman riddle.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
And the team at the Front Page magazine has been unmasking these totalitarians
since the earliest days of the internet.
Founded by David Horowitz, a former red diaper baby and new leftist who ultimately became an enemy of the left and a best-selling author, Frontpage magazine has spent over two decades combating the radical left's efforts to destroy America.
Their two new podcasts, Which are called The Right Take with Mark Tapsin and The Jason Hill Show offer riveting interviews and insightful coverage of politics, culture, and current events.
The Right Take with Mark Tapsin offers fascinating, in-depth cultural commentary as well as interviews with well-known conservative thinkers.
The Jason Hill Show offers thoughtful, deep dives about the ideologies of the radical left and interviews with renowned intellectuals like Peter Wood and Bruce Gilley.
It takes a village to combat the radical left's efforts to destroy America.
That's why you, as a fan of my show, should check out all of these guys over at FrontPage Magazine by visiting FrontPageMag.com.
And while you're there, support their cause by making a tax-deductible donation.
Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out and no one understands that better than the team at FrontPage Magazine.
So go check out FrontPageMag.com today.
Well, it's not always easy to live in a decaying society.
Watching civilization fall to pieces around you can really take a toll on your mental health, I think.
And so it's understandable that we're sometimes inclined to tell ourselves comforting lies.
You know, we want to take solace in pleasant, encouraging Myths and superstitions and one such fiction is that we like to tell ourselves is that we can escape our cultural decay by just moving away from it physically.
We like to pretend that most of the really crazy and disturbing stuff happening in our country can be avoided by simply living somewhere that isn't San Francisco or Seattle or Austin, Texas or anywhere in Vermont.
But that's not the case, because the media, the internet, federal government, the education system, they act as a delivery service for all manner of perversion and moral insanity, and they're everywhere.
You can't completely escape it no matter where you go.
You cannot socially distance yourself away from this contagion unless you're moving all the way into the unexplored regions of the Amazon or somewhere like that.
It is still certainly a good idea to stay away from the most demented leftist hellholes.
It's possible to find places in America that are much better and safer than that.
But they'll never be completely safe.
And that's an important thing to realize.
So that we don't let our guard down completely.
For example, Idaho.
is about as red as a red state can get politically. It's voted for the Republican candidate in every
presidential election since forever, I mean, at least for the past 40 years and longer.
And yet, as Libs of TikTok reports today, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
is teaming up with an activist group to provide porn literacy materials for children in school.
The Idaho Freedom Foundation organization has more details about this quote, Idaho's Department of Health and Welfare implements a sex education curriculum endorsed by Planned Parenthood in its schools.
The curriculum and training for sex education facilitators is purchased from an interest group that promotes queering education and normalizing the consumption of pornography.
Idaho law requires sex education taught in public schools to reinforce traditional family arrangements.
IDHW promotes what Idaho law prohibits, however.
IDHW takes funds from federal programs like the Personal Responsibility Education Program and Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education.
Then IDHW acquires sex education products From nonprofits like Education Training and Research Organization, which is ETR, whose curriculum is developed and endorsed by Planned Parenthood.
Yes, Planned Parenthood has taken a special interest in sex education, not just in Idaho, but across the country for a long time.
It's not difficult to see why.
Sexualizing kids at younger and younger ages means more and more customers for them in the long run.
The earlier that they sexualize kids, then the more reckless sexual behavior you can expect, and then the more, quote-unquote, unwanted pregnancies, the more STDs, and then you get the more people walking into Thank you.
Here's a little more from the report.
It says, ETR's Reducing the Risk curriculum promises to teach abstinence, but instead, ETR delivers a variety of approaches, including an LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum that queers education with an emphasis on gender identity, sexual orientation, and behavior.
ETR also advocates for teaching elementary students about porn literacy, which involves instruction on kink and power, pleasure, sexual identity, sexual acts, And sexual exploration in relation to pornography.
Now, if you'd like to know more about porn literacy, or even if you don't, either way, here's a video from ETR explaining.
Watch.
We can promote a shame-free educational space by letting young people know that it's okay if they are curious, it's okay if they have watched porn, and it's okay if they have thought about porn.
I always make sure to say, someone being curious about sex and or porn does not make them a bad person, it makes them human.
It's so important we normalize that this is a natural human experience.
And I also want to make a point to share that not wanting to watch porn is also completely fine.
There is no judgment and shame for not being curious, that's okay too.
And we want to create environments in the classroom where students don't shame each other.
So as an educator, my job is to provide information about sexual health and have students critically think by exploring all sides of an issue.
Critical thinking skills are the largest component of porn literacy.
It's the ability for young people to analyze and ask questions about the media that they're viewing.
Critical thinking skills allow young people to understand the intention behind pornography.
So much of sex education is reflecting on our values and beliefs in relation to a topic, and porn literacy is no exception.
For facilitators, it's first important for them to reflect on their reasons for wanting to teach porn literacy.
Do they want to teach porn literacy because they believe watching porn and by extension sex work is inherently bad and they want to stop young people from accessing it?
That's unfortunately not going to lead to good conversations because it's pushing one agenda.
That porn is mad.
No, we wouldn't want to give the kids a negative view of hardcore porn.
You know, we don't want to bias nine-year-olds against pornography before they've even had a chance to check out Pornhub for themselves.
We wouldn't want to do that.
The real goal, they say, is to teach critical thinking skills to the porn viewer.
Yes, because pornography is famous for its ability to nurture critical thinking skills.
Everyone knows that the average porn viewer is only watching it so that he can hone his skills of discernment, which is quite a euphemism.
However, if we leave the land of make-believe and we come back to reality-ville, which is where I prefer to live, we can plainly see that the opposite is the case.
Porn actually destroys critical thinking.
This is why porn viewers become less discerning the more they watch.
Porn manipulates the brain.
It floods its reward systems with dopamine and creates an effect similar to a drug.
Research has shown that over time, this process results in increasingly dire physical changes to the brain itself.
I mean, porn changes your brain physically.
You can see it on a brain scan.
It warps it and rewires it.
Porn has an especially corrosive effect on the prefrontal cortex, which is precisely the part of the brain most involved in critical thinking and discernment.
As an article in neurosciencenews.com says, porn use has been correlated with erosion of the prefrontal cortex, the region of the brain that houses executive functions like morality, willpower, and impulse control.
To better understand the role of this structure in behavior, it's important to know that it remains underdeveloped during childhood.
This is why children struggle to regulate their emotions and impulses.
Damage to the prefrontal cortex in adulthood is termed hypofrontality, which predisposes an individual to behave compulsively, And make poor decisions.
Does that remind you of anyone?
Like, everyone.
Does it remind you of everyone?
You know, if it seems like people these days are stuck in perpetual adolescence, their maturation stunted, lingering in a kind of juvenile state forever, that's not your imagination.
That is, in fact, what's happening.
And rampant porn use in childhood has much to do with this problem.
It's not the only culprit.
It's not the only thing causing the problem.
But it's definitely contributing to it.
Kids are being exposed to material that corrodes the very parts of their brain necessary for attaining intellectual maturity.
If we want children to learn critical thinking, the very last thing we should ever do is introduce them to pornography.
Of course, there are many other reasons to refrain from intentionally exposing them to sexual content, reasons both scientific and moral, not to mention legal.
It's against the law to do exactly what this Idaho sex ed program has declared its intention to do, and what so many other sex ed programs across the country do every single day.
Now, the fact that this sort of insanity is happening in a sex ed program in Idaho only goes to show, once again, that sex education is hopelessly flawed as a concept.
There is no rescuing it.
There is no good version of sex ed.
All sex ed traces back to Alfred Kinsey and is structured on his theories of human sexuality.
Even abstinence-only sex ed is absurd because it is abstinence education fundamentally built on the work of a degenerate pedophile.
None of these conversations have any place in the school system, and no matter what you do, No matter what sort of sex ed program you devise, it will always devolve into this sort of thing.
Always, every time.
Porn literacy and all the other varieties of perversion.
That's always what it turns into.
And that's because this is what sex ed was always meant to be and to achieve.
This is its natural and intended endpoint.
Alfred Kinsey looking up from hell while roasting in the flames probably takes at least a little bit of pleasure amid his eternal damnation in the fact that sex ed has turned into exactly what he wanted it to be.
He's looking up from hell at sex ed and porn literacy and saying, yes, exactly.
See?
That's what I wanted.
And that's why he's where he is right now.
Now we might also ask, Why there would be such an insistence on exposing kids to porn.
I mean, it's not like anyone needs help finding it.
We already live in a porn-addicted society.
Everyone is familiar, you know, with porn, certainly.
And everyone is familiar with the staggering numbers that places like Pornhub boast, you know, at the end of each year.
The many billions of collective hours Americans spend watching porn.
The many and increasingly disgusting varieties and genres they explore, and so on.
And we're all familiar with that.
And it's not just Pornhub enjoying the windfall.
The CEO of OnlyFans, who we know, by the way, almost nothing about.
Okay, we know his name.
We don't know anything else about this guy.
He escapes media scrutiny despite being the most prolific pimp in the history of the world, perhaps second only to Hugh Hefner.
But he has earned $500 million just over the past two years.
Half a billion in his pocket from OnlyFans.
Suffice it to say that people are watching lots and lots of porn already.
So why do activists and school teachers, but I repeat myself, want to get even more people sucked into this world?
Because here's the answer.
When a person is addicted to porn, they are exactly where our culture wants them to be and how it wants them to be.
So, as already established, porn tends to erode your critical thinking skills, your powers of discernment and self-control.
That is all advantageous to the left.
I mean, they love that.
Porn isolates people, makes them lonely, emotionally and spiritually desolate and desperate.
Porn also obviously militates against all of the traditional values, which we used to call virtues, chastity, temperance, patience, humility.
All dwindle away through porn consumption.
So.
Isolated.
Undiscerning.
Lacking in self-control.
Lacking in critical thinking.
Lonely.
Intemperate.
Unchased.
That's how the left wants us.
Because for one thing, it makes us easier to control.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
I've already talked about this.
I think we reposted my rant on this subject on YouTube over the weekend, so I'm not going to belabor it.
I just need to say, I have to say, all I'm going to say is that yesterday I was driving home from work.
I was on back country roads, and I found myself stuck in traffic, which is unusual because there's not a lot of, you know, it's usually not a lot of traffic there.
And I'm moving at a snail's pace, and I'm stuck there for, you know, several minutes.
And I'm thinking, what's going on?
I thought there was an accident.
And then I get to the source of the problem, only to find out that it's a gang of dorks on bicycles in the middle of the damn street.
Holding up the lines of cars behind them and forcing everyone to go around them across a double yellow line on a windy country road into oncoming traffic.
So, they, for the sake of their recreation, don't tell me, oh, they're just commuting.
It's a whole gang of them with their little spandex outfits and everything.
They're not all commuting to work.
They're just doing it for fun.
They say, let's go, let's get together and go for a bicycle ride.
In the middle of the street, Right at the time, you know, prime commuting time, people are coming home from work, the middle of the road, backcountry roads, you're holding everybody up and endangering their safety for the sake of your recreation.
Sociopaths.
I don't know how we allow this.
I don't know how we allow it.
This should be illegal.
There should be a paddy wagon showing up and just cuffing all these people and throwing them into and taking them to jail.
That's what should happen.
How are you not, don't you feel, I said I wasn't going to get into it, my last point.
How do you not feel uncomfortable at least?
Like if I was on a bicycle in the middle of the street and there was a whole line of cars behind me, I would feel uncomfortable knowing that I'm inconveniencing all these people just because I want to have fun.
It would make me very uncomfortable.
I would feel bad about that.
I would be able to feel their glare, right?
Like on the back of my neck, I would just know they're glaring at me.
And I would be forced to just move to the side of the road because I don't like inconveniencing people if I can help it.
But these cyclists are just no self-awareness or either that or they want to cause these problems.
It's these insidious villains.
Anyway, alright.
So, speaking of insidious villains, yesterday Lindsey Graham, normally a squish extraordinaire, made a surprise announcement.
He was introducing a bill in the Senate to ban abortion federally across the country at 15 weeks.
So, here he is making the announcement yesterday.
So here's what I think we will be doing about the unborn.
We will introduce legislation.
I, along with a lot of my colleagues, to basically get America in a position at the federal level I think is fairly consistent with the rest of the world.
Can we?
We have charts.
Shows you how serious we are.
All right.
15 weeks.
A baby's at the 15-week period.
What does that mean?
Well, it means if you're going to operate on the baby, which happens, to save the child's life, to provide medical treatment, the standard practice in medicine is to provide anesthesia.
Now, why would you do that?
You provide anesthesia because the science tells us that the 15-week period, the nerve endings of the baby, are pretty well developed and the child feels pain.
So, here's our point.
That if you have to provide anesthesia to keep the baby from feeling pain to help save its life, should we as a nation be aborting babies that can feel excruciating pain from an abortion?
No, we should not.
Absolutely, we should not.
He's right about everything he's saying.
Their children can feel pain.
They're human beings.
Killing them is a horrific crime.
It is quite perverse, to say the least, that if you operate on an unborn child, which is correct, that that is also something that happens quite frequently, that operations on human beings in the womb, and they use anesthesia, but through the process of abortion, you know, there's obviously no anesthesia because there's no recognition that this human being is a human being.
So if we're going to operate All of that is true, and yet I disagree with what Lindsey Graham is doing here.
I am against it.
pretend that the child isn't, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
All of that is true.
And yet I disagree with what Lindsey Graham is doing here.
I am against it.
I'm against this bill right now at this point in time, and I'll explain why.
Now first of all, I don't need to go over my pro-life credentials here.
I'm as pro-life as they come.
You know that.
I'm radically pro-life.
I am pro-life from conception.
I've been fighting against the abortion industry my whole public career and before that.
So, that's something that you all know.
Banning abortion at 15 weeks?
Definitely.
I would ban abortion from conception.
That's how I want to ban it.
I think our ultimate goal, the thing we really want, is a constitutional amendment, a personhood amendment.
Which we shouldn't need, because the Constitution already protects, you know, guarantees the rights of all human beings, which obviously includes those in the womb.
But we do need it, and that's what I would want to see.
I'm in favor of a federal ban also.
I'm in favor of a federal ban.
I'm not one of these conservatives who says that this is, well, it's a state's issue, this is a state's rights issue.
Lots of conservatives say that.
I don't say that.
That's not what I think.
I don't think states have the right to legalize the murder of babies.
I believe in state rights, but obviously states' rights is not an absolute.
They don't have the right to legalize anything they want, and I don't think they have the right.
They don't have the moral right and they shouldn't have the legal right to permit the murder of babies.
I don't think that the genocide of an entire category of people is something that falls within the purview of states' rights.
But I'm against the bill.
Why?
Well, because it's very simple.
And let's establish something from the outset.
There's zero debate about this part of it.
The legislation that he's introducing will not become law.
The bill will not become law.
It is literally impossible that the bill that Lindsey Graham is introducing will become law.
Impossible, okay?
Congress and the White House are controlled by the Democrats, and they are not going to pass a federal abortion ban.
They won't even let it come up for a vote.
It's not gonna happen.
Never.
Impossible.
You'd have better luck jumping off of a 100-story building and using a napkin as a parachute.
It's not going to happen.
And this isn't even one of those, well, it's worth a try.
You never know.
No, this is not even a try.
That's like putting a rock in a microwave and saying, well, maybe an elephant will pop out.
It's worth a try.
That is not within the realm of possible outcomes.
It just isn't.
So why introduce the bill?
Well, it's a political play.
That's all it is.
That's all it can be.
It's its only function.
So that's the only way that we should be judging this, is as a political play, because that is all it can be.
Now, I have no problem in theory with proposing doomed legislation as a political strategy.
When you're in the minority, you're the minority party, you don't control Congress, you don't control the White House, you can't actually pass anything.
Does that mean you shouldn't propose anything?
No.
I think it could be a good strategy sometimes to propose bills that you know will not pass.
In theory.
But it has to be a good political strategy because that's all it is, is a political strategy.
So is this a good political strategy?
What is the strategy in proposing this legislation right now before the midterms?
All it does is give the Democrats exactly what they want.
They want to talk about a federal abortion ban.
They want to distract from the economy, from crime, from the transing of kids, from the education system, from the grooming that they're doing.
All of that.
They don't want to talk about any of that.
They want to talk about a federal abortion ban.
It's very clear that they want to talk about that.
And so Graham is giving them exactly what they want.
This is exactly what they want to talk about.
Now, It only makes sense to do something like this.
If a federal abortion ban at 15 weeks is massively, enormously popular, because then if it's massively and enormously popular for it to have a federal abortion ban at 15 weeks, then you can incentivize voters to vote for you with the promise that you'll pass the law if you're voted in.
Even though, even if the Republicans, there was a landslide, there's a red wave at the midterms, they still can't pass any laws because it'd be vetoed by the White House.
But still, as an incentive, it makes sense if you're proposing a really popular piece of legislation.
It also changes the conversation to focus on this popular piece of legislation.
But is a federal 15-week abortion ban that popular?
No.
I mean, not according to any poll, not by any metric.
It should be popular, but it isn't.
It should be popular, but it isn't.
There are varying claims about how unpopular it is, but the fact is that it's not nearly... Here's what we can say at a minimum.
It is not nearly popular enough to justify this strategy.
If you're gonna put up legislation like this right before the midterms, then it has to be an absolute home run that's gonna be like, you're gonna get 60, 70% approval from the voters for it.
Then it makes sense to do.
But that's not the case with a federal abortion ban.
I mean, at best, this is like, it's a split down the middle, you know, type of thing.
Which is a sort of issue that you, that's the kind of thing that you do, it's the sort of thing you work on, it's the sort of thing you push after the election, not before it.
This is not the conversation the Republicans should be having going into the midterms.
It helps Democrats, not Republicans.
If you want to pass pro-life legislation, you need a pro-life government, and this makes that less likely to happen.
You have decreased the possibility of actually passing a bill like this by proposing it a few weeks before the midterms, at a time when the Democrats are desperate to change the topic and to focus on something like this.
That's why the Dems were practically crying tears of joy when Graham announced this.
They were ecstatic.
All of them were in front of microphones and cameras, and they had their fundraising pitches ready to go within 19 seconds.
They were so excited about this.
Here's Chuck Schumer, for example.
While MAGA Republicans are fixated on their extremist agenda like a national abortion ban, Democrats are focused on creating jobs, lowering costs, and bringing the country together.
That's total nonsense, of course.
They're focused on creating jobs and bringing the country together.
That's not at all what they're focused on, but that is exactly the talking point they wanted.
The Republicans are focused on this, and this is what we're doing.
Katie Porter in California had an ad ready to go within, like, 30 minutes.
Here's that.
The Supreme Court has taken away our right to choose, giving politicians power to control women's most personal health decisions.
In Washington, they're planning a nationwide ban on abortion.
No exceptions, not for rape or incest.
The word extreme gets tossed around a lot, but making it illegal to have an abortion, no exceptions, truly is extreme.
I'm Katie Porter.
I'll fight any attempt at a nationwide abortion ban.
Okay, now, I'd be the first to say that we don't decide what we're going to do as conservatives based on what the left will say about it.
You know, we can't refrain from doing the right thing because the left will be mad about it.
That obviously is how I feel.
But again, given that this is just a political play, and that's all it can be, you have to think, is it smart politically to give the Democrats exactly the conversation that they want right now?
Not to mention, as Karen Jean Payer pointed out, right, correctly, when she was talking about this at the White House press conference, she quoted Lindsey Graham from a month ago on TV saying that he thinks abortion is a state's issue and shouldn't be decided by the federal government.
He did say that a month ago.
I don't even agree with that.
I think that, again, I think the federal government does have a role.
But that's what he said.
And now he's the one who's coming out with this?
He's never been a big pro-life advocate in the first place.
Like, Lindsey Graham?
When has he ever showed that he gives a damn about the pro-life cause?
In the past, when Republicans have controlled the government, Lindsey Graham wasn't leading the charge to pass pro-life legislation.
And there are things that could have been done even when Roe v. Wade was still active So when they actually have the ability to do something, he doesn't want to do anything.
And when the bill can't pass, that's when he's behind it.
It's almost like he wants Republicans to lose.
That's the conspiracy theory that I would actually subscribe to here.
He wants Republicans to lose.
This is sabotage.
It's the only way to explain it, given who it's coming from especially.
It's one thing if this is coming from someone in Congress who's just been deeply pro-life, a pro-life activist for years, and this has been their number one issue, and this is one of their central things they talk about all the time, and they're just so excited about it that they maybe put the cart before the horse a little bit and came out and proposed this right before the midterms.
That would be one thing.
Now, I'd still say it's a bad political strategy, but then at least I could believe that it's sincere.
In this case, I don't even believe that it's sincere.
This to me seems like sabotage.
Because there are Republicans who want to be the minority party.
They want to be the opposition.
They want to be in the position of proposing laws that they know cannot pass.
You know what?
If you want to pass a bill, or rather not pass a bill because you can't pass it, if you want to propose a bill right before the midterms with the intention of Changing the conversation, or focusing the conversation on something that's politically good for you to be talking about.
And with the intention also of making Democrats seem extreme by their opposition to it, here's the bill that you should be proposing.
Okay, so what all the Republicans in the Senate should be getting together, Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and all of them should be coming out, holding a press conference, saying that they are proposing a federal ban on child castration.
And on cosmetic double mastectomies for minor girls.
That's what they should be doing.
Not gonna pass.
No way it's gonna pass.
But politically, that's a winner.
Because now you're putting the Democrats in the position, right before the midterms, of having to defend castrating and butchering kids.
Now that is a winning political strategy.
And we can guarantee the vast majority of this country, if they are made aware that this is even happening, and many people don't know that it's happening, but if they're made aware of it, of course they're going to be against it.
That's what you do if you want to win.
Of course, the problem with the Republicans is they don't often want to win.
All right.
Let's move to, so that was someone ostensibly pretending to be pro-life who doesn't want to win.
Here's someone who does like to win on the pro-life side.
Lila Rose of Live Action appeared on Dr. Phil to talk about the abortion issue.
And I want to play a little bit of this clip because I thought it was pretty compelling.
The predicate of your positions that life begins at fertilization, that science is very clear about that.
And you have to know science isn't, there's no consensus among the scientific community.
There is, Dr. Phil.
96% of scientists say that life begins at fertilization.
If you're an in vitro specialist, you're looking to create a single cell embryo, then you know you have a new human life.
So it is a scientific fact.
Well, actually it's not.
When do you say human life begins then?
Well, it doesn't matter what I think.
I don't care what I think.
What I'm saying is the scientific community does not have a consensus about when life begins.
It's simply inaccurate.
That's not true.
You can go to the body... A single cell embryo is a unique new human life.
You can go to the body of scientific literature and you can find neuroscientists who say that it begins when there is a detectable brain wave.
But Dr. Phil, in an abortion, if it's not a human life, why do you have to kill it?
I haven't spoken over you and you keep speaking over me and I assume that's because you don't want me to finish my thought, which is If anyone here wants to fact check me instead of speak over me, you can go to the scientific literature and query what the definition is of the beginning of life.
Okay, so things got contentious there.
I will say, I do give credit to Dr. Phil, even though we clearly seem to be on opposite sides of the abortion issue.
I give credit to him for this reason, and that is that he doesn't just talk about these kinds of issues on his show, but he actually brings, this is the part that is unique, he brings people on from the conservative side who are able and articulate defenders of the position.
You know, and he brings them on to defend the position rather than taking the CNN approach or the MSNBC approach and finding some brainless patsy whose only role is to get, who's only, you know, there just to get steamrolled.
The controlled opposition, you know, strategy.
So he doesn't do that.
He was talking about critical race theory back in the summer.
He brought on James Lindsay to talk about it.
He was talking about gender theory.
He brought me on to talk about it.
He wants to discuss the pro-life issue.
Brings on Lila Rose.
You know, as a pro-lifer myself, if someone, if Dr. Phil had come to me and said, who do you think is the best person to bring on my show to talk about abortion?
I would have recommended her.
She'd be the one I would have recommended.
So, I do appreciate that.
Of course, Lila Rose is correct, though, in this discussion.
Life does begin at conception.
It's not really up for debate.
It's the only logical point for life to begin.
And the reason is this.
Now, we could talk about the, you know, what the scientists say and everything, and always on the pro-abortion side, they want to find, well, you know, the consensus, scientific consensus says this or that.
There is certainly no scientific consensus that life does not begin at conception.
Most scientists will tell you that it does, because there's no way around it.
And then you might have other scientists that say, well, we don't really know.
But even outside of that, it's just a matter of logic.
The way that we know that life begins at conception is that at conception there is something, right?
There's a physical entity which exists.
We can agree on that point.
Well, any physical entity which exists must exist in a state.
Some kind of state.
And there are really only three options.
Every physical entity is alive or dead or inanimate.
So you can look around the room that you're currently sitting in.
Look anywhere.
Look under a microscope.
And all you will see, anywhere, are things that are living, things that are dead, and things which are inanimate matter.
Well, the physical entity at conception must be one of these.
Right?
So if you're saying it's not alive, then it has to be something else.
And what is it?
Well, we know it's not dead.
We know that.
We know it's not inanimate matter.
Because it's organic matter.
It's growing.
It's developing.
It's becoming.
It has DNA.
It has a genetic code.
It is in no way like a chair or a rock.
Or anything else that is inanimate.
So, what's left?
Well, it's living.
It's a living, physical entity.
There's no real way around that.
So if you're on the pro-abortion side, what you really believe, now you might say, I don't know if it's really living or not.
No, it is.
It's just, there's no way, it is.
It certainly is.
But what you're actually saying is that sometimes it is okay to destroy innocent, helpless human life.
Whether you'll say it out loud or not, that is actually your position.
But there's a reason why you don't want to say it out loud, and that is that it's a horrifying position.
Alright, the Emmys were on Sunday.
I didn't know this was happening, of course, until I saw the outrage on Twitter.
There always has to be some sort of awards outrage that comes out of these things.
And this time, sometimes the outrage is sort of fun to talk about.
The Will Smith thing, I mean, that was a classic, right?
That was actually an enjoyable awards show-related outrage that was enjoyable to talk about and entertaining.
The one from the Emmys, this is a little disappointing.
It doesn't quite live up to the hype.
So Jimmy Kimmel did a bit I don't know all the background on this, I don't care.
The bit, I guess, is that he was up presenting the award for some category, and he pretended to pass out, for some reason, on the stage.
And then, they announced the winner, and it was an actress, who was black, and Kimmel kept lying there, still pretending to be passed out, even as she came up to give her acceptance speech.
Let's watch a little bit of that moment.
Quinta Brunson!
[cheers and applause]
[upbeat music]
♪ ♪ [cheers and applause]
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
Jimmy, wake up, all right?
I won!
Jimmy?
Okay, hold my phone.
Um...
[laughter]
[cheers and applause]
Um...
My goodness.
(sniffles)
Okay, and then she just gives her acceptance speech with the guy lying there.
It's awkward and weird.
And that's really all that can be said about it, but as always, social media and the news media, they're not satisfied to just say that because there are racial dynamics here.
You know, Jimmy Kimmel's a white guy, this actress is a black woman.
And so now they're making it racial.
And so all these headlines saying that it was racist.
It was racist for Jimmy Kimmel to steal the woman's shine like that.
You know?
There's all these posts on social media.
White men are always doing this.
Damn white men.
This is something white men always do.
White men are constantly lying on awards show stages while people are trying to give their acceptance speeches.
It's a thing we always do.
It's part of our culture.
Now, um, This just shows again the problem with racializing everything, because it's guaranteed that you're going to miss the point.
And also, you end up distracting from valid criticisms.
In this case, this is like a small example of it, but there's a very valid criticism you could make of Jimmy Kimmel.
He's an ass.
I mean, Jimmy Kimmel is a jerk.
He's a bad person.
And he's arrogant and self-centered, and yeah, he wanted to make this moment about him.
I'd be annoyed, too, if I'm up there giving my acceptance speech when I win an Emmy, and there's just some jerk laying on the ground, you know, because he thought of this bad comedy bit, and he's doing it in the middle of my... I'd be annoyed by that.
You know, just, like, kick him in the ribs or something, make him move.
But it's not racial.
Like, the idea that he did it because she's a black woman, He said to himself, this is a black woman, I gotta do what
I can to intrude here.
Is absurd. Although it is kind of funny that Jimmy Kimmel, to this point, with the racial
outrage brigade out there, searching for racism wherever they can find it, often landing in
places where the racism ends up being imaginary and invisible.
You know, they're over at BYU searching for an invisible racist who silently shouted the N-word.
Meanwhile, Jimmy Kimmel has been a late-night network TV host for years now, and there are tons of videos of him out there in blackface.
This is something this guy did all the time back in the 90s.
He was constantly a blackface.
And somehow he has escaped criticism for that.
So it'd be kind of funny if this is what brings him down.
Like, this is the racial controversy that brings him down.
Where he wasn't even actually being racist.
It's a little bit of the, you know, the OJ Simpson thing, where they couldn't get him for murder, so instead they get him for stealing his own merchandise bag or whatever it was.
So basically, it's kind of the same thing here.
They didn't get Jimmy Kimmel for the blackface, so they're gonna get him for this instead.
Alright, let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
I will tell you a little bit of good news from my own life is that my wife has
finally come around to the fact that we need to buy a van.
And the SUVs aren't going to cut it.
I mean, I told you when we first found out we were having twins, she, you know, has been anti-van our entire marriage.
And she still had this idea that even with six kids, we wouldn't have to get a van.
Now she's realizing that there's no way around it.
We got to get the van.
The van is inevitable.
Except now she's looking up vans that are like $95,000 or whatever.
Meanwhile, I go on Craigslist and I find vans for sale for under $8,000.
I found a van for $400 on Craigslist and I'm sending her all these links.
Astro vans.
Now those are the real deal.
They don't make them anymore.
You can only find them on Craigslist.
You can only find them used.
But my family had an Astrovan growing up.
Our rear passenger door was falling off and was actually duct taped on.
That's true.
And I got about six miles to the gallon.
The engine sounded like a polar bear drowning or something.
It was a great vehicle.
It was great.
There were vomit stains on the third row seat because I had a car sickness problem and I didn't have my relief band back then.
It's just a great vehicle.
There were holes rusted on the side panel, big holes.
My brother fell through one of them on the highway.
We never saw him again.
It was a great, fantastic, a classic.
I'm looking forward to having something like that again.
All right, Max Winter says, A black actor playing the Little Mermaid really is a case of white erasure.
All forms of art, including fairy tales, are meant to be reflections of the author's experiences and observations.
Hans Christian Andersen probably based The Little Mermaid based on experiences he went through in his home country of Denmark, so it makes sense that most of his characters would be white, since that's the world and the people he was surrounded by.
Yeah, I'm given The way that we deal with these sorts of issues, I'm sympathetic to that.
Now, I would be fine, like we talked about yesterday.
We don't have to rehash the entire thing, but if we all agreed that race in films and TV shows, especially fictional stories, don't matter, and we're going to take a kind of colorblind casting approach, and, you know, it doesn't matter as long as the actor is good.
If we could all agree on that, then I'd be on board.
And as I said, that's basically what it was for many years.
It's what it was back in the 90s.
But what I cannot abide by is the double standard thing where we say, well, race, the race, the casting, the race in casting matters only for certain races and not for others.
That, no.
No, we're not doing that.
Also, by the way, with the Little Mermaid, can we also just mention that from a scientific perspective, Okay, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have someone with darker skin who lives deep in the ocean.
I mean, if anything, I mean, not only should the Little Mermaid be pale, she should actually be translucent.
If you look at deep-sea creatures, they're, like, translucent.
They have no kind of pigmentation whatsoever, and they're just, like, these horrifying— they look like skeletons floating around in the ocean.
That's what the Little Mermaid should look like.
She should be totally pale and skeletal, where you can see her skull through her face.
And that would actually be a version of Little Mermaid that I would watch.
Let's see, Dionysus Voice says, "Matt, I really have to express my outrage, disgust, and
offense at your comparison with wokesters and octopi.
Unlike Wokesters, Octopi have been known to demonstrate a significant amount of intelligence.
Well, you pretend to be some sort of expert, but actually, octopi, this is like a misnomer that the plural of octopuses is octopi.
That's actually not true.
It is octopuses.
And because you lacked that knowledge about octopuses, you're banned from the show.
And finally, Brandon Kelly says, I was looking at a book of African fairy tales and I want to buy it because these stories are not as well known as the European ones, but what makes it sad is that Hollywood refuses to adapt these stories because they rather have a Latina Rapunzel or a black Cinderella than anything.
Yeah, and that's another very good point that other people brought up as we were talking about this.
And that is, if we're making the decision, if we're saying, if Hollywood is saying, okay, we need to have more black people who are leads in these kinds of stories.
We need to have more children's stories with black leads.
We need to have fairy tales with black leads.
Just like they say we need more female action heroes.
Like, well then why not make new stories?
Rather than taking the old stories and flipping them around.
It's like, oh, well, now we're going to take this action franchise, and now we have the girl version of it.
And we're going to take this fairy tale, we're going to make the black version of it.
Rather than doing that, how about just tell a new story?
Then, you know what?
Everybody wins.
That's a win for everybody.
You get the representation that you want, and we also get new stories.
We get, rather than recycling the same damn thing over and over again, They're going to make another Pinocchio in three years, and it's going to be a trans-Asian pansexual Pinocchio.
Rather than that, we've told that story.
We have a million iterations of Pinocchio.
How about just tell a new story?
Crazy idea.
Well, a big announcement this week.
Maybe you've heard Candace Owens is back from maternity leave with a vengeance.
Her brand new show, Candace Owens, is available now on Daily Wire Plus and takes on the big topics of the day, uncovers lies and exposes the hypocrisy in news and politics.
And you know it's going to be done in typical Candace style, fearless and resolute.
This is everything you love about Candace, only now.
She is streaming five days a week.
You'll not want to miss her explosive first episode, which premiered this week.
Trust me when I say this is huge.
Watch Candace Owens' show now on Daily Wire Plus, or listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So last week we looked at a couple of recent attempts to finally solve the what is a woman riddle.
As you may remember, they both failed in spectacular fashion.
Their answers didn't even make it past square one.
They blew up on the launch pad and killed everybody on board, metaphorically.
But at least they tried, because we've finally forced the left to confront this question.
They realize they cannot evade it any longer.
They have to confront it.
And so all of the best minds in the gender ideology world have set to work.
This is like the Manhattan Project of green-haired gender studies majors.
They're all on the problem now.
They've been brainstorming around the clock.
An all-star team of the smartest and most insightful gender activists in the world All with comparatively impressive IQs compared to the rest of them, some reaching even into the high double digits, and they've been digging into this problem, deliberating, searching desperately for a solution.
And yet, so far, a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, is the best that any of them have been able to do.
It's as though the Manhattan Project spent years on research and development, and rather than inventing the nuclear bomb, they came up with, like, a firecracker.
Although, at least a firecracker is an actual thing.
It exists.
It makes sense.
A woman, as anyone who identifies as a woman, is nothing.
It's not a definition.
It's not anything.
It's circular.
It's incoherent.
And yet again, it is the best that they have been able to do.
Until now.
Here to meet the challenge, or to die trying, is a writer called Paul John Poles.
Paul is a self-identified feminine trans man, which I guess is a female who identifies as a male and sees herself as feminine.
That presents its own bundle of cords to untangle, but there's not time for that today.
It does mean, though, that the writer is coming at this question from a pretty unique perspective.
Because usually the gender ideologues who try to tackle the woman question are males who wish to find a definition of woman that will include them.
But in this case, interestingly enough, we have a female who wishes to find a definition of woman that does not include her.
How will she do it?
Well, PJP begins by acknowledging a few points that the gender ideologues usually prefer to ignore.
She points out that gender cannot rest on stereotypes and social constructs, as her side usually has it, because that effectively excludes a lot of people from womanhood that she doesn't want to exclude.
It also includes her, but she doesn't want to be included.
Next, the writer recognizes that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman is circular and therefore logically invalid.
She does acknowledge that.
She also points to another problem that I hadn't even thought about with the, you know, a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman definition.
She says that hinging the definition of woman on self-identification is a problem for her side because it excludes people who don't yet consciously identify as women but may at some point in the future.
You know, the trans community creepily refers to people who they think might be trans or can be turned trans as eggs.
That's what they call them.
Eggs, right?
Eggs that need to be hatched.
And they may sort of home in on a boy who they think could be made into a girl, a process that we used to call grooming before every social media site banned the term.
But the point is that they want to be able to say that the boy is already a girl and has always been a girl, yet hasn't realized it.
That's what they want to say.
So, when the boy is nine years old and first says, I'm a girl, No, the trans side, they don't say that he just became a girl then.
They say, no, he was always a girl, even before that.
He just came to realize it now.
Well, see, that doesn't work if the very definition of womanhood or girlhood relies on conscious self-identification.
That's another problem.
So, what can be done about this?
Here's the writer's solution.
I'm going to read now.
Quote.
This finally brings us to our definition.
A woman is an adult human whose subconscious sex is female.
The beauty of it is that it doesn't include trans men or cis men, their subconscious sex is male, and it includes both cis women and trans women, their subconscious sex is female.
And it also doesn't invalidate gender non-conforming trans and cis people.
And the best thing about it is that the person who is best qualified to know whether or not you are a woman is still you, which means that we can still keep our beloved ethical guideline of respecting people's self-identification.
Except that now the word woman actually means something.
Well, no, it doesn't.
In fact, it's never meant less if that's the definition.
Now, I can appreciate that you've made a valiant effort to avoid a circular definition, but unfortunately, your efforts have driven you even farther off the logical path and deep into the woods where it's dark and confusing and no light penetrates through the canopy.
It's even worse now.
So let's review all the problems with this definition.
Number one.
Your subconscious, by definition, is the part of your mind that you don't have access to.
You are unaware of it.
Actually, the subconscious or unconscious mind is a psychoanalytical theory invented by Freud.
There are all kinds of logical and scientific problems with it.
It also has given risen to all manner of psychiatric fads and panics.
Such as the infamous repressed memory hysteria back in the 90s, when a whole bunch of women in therapy all realized all of a sudden that they had been abused as children, and then a whole bunch of people got arrested based on that, and it turned out that they were, like, imagining it.
For that matter, the concept of transgenderism wouldn't exist either without these Freudian concepts of, you know, the unconscious mind and so forth.
So, there are problems, is what I'm saying, with the whole idea of the subconscious, at least as it has traditionally been understood.
But that takes us off on a tangent about how the entire field of psychoanalysis is built on nonsense fabrications and wild theories invented by a bunch of weirdos a hundred years ago.
We're going to leave that to the side and stay focused.
The point is that the term subconscious means, and this is what it means, the part of your mind you aren't aware of.
So, if someone is subconsciously female, they wouldn't know that they're female.
If you know that you're female, then you are consciously female, not subconsciously.
But of course, saying a woman is anyone who is consciously female is just another way of saying that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.
You're trying to avoid the endless logical loop, which is why you've introduced the subconscious into the equation, but you can't really do that.
The subconscious cannot save you.
In fact, its entrance into the conversation creates far more problems for you than it solves.
Also, your subconscious cannot have a sex.
Your consciousness also does not have a sex in and of itself.
By definition, sex is a physical category having to do with reproductive organs and chromosomes and DNA.
You are here positing a scenario where a person with a physical sex of male could have a mind, even an unconscious mind, With the physical sex of female.
So you have turned the mind into its own physical entity, literally contained inside the physical body, and which has its own DNA.
This is what you're doing, not to the brain, but to the mind.
Essentially, you're imagining the human body as some sort of fleshy shell with a whole other person inside it, steering it around.
That makes for a good plot point in a science fiction film, but it's not how things work in reality.
In reality, you can cut a person open and inspect every part of them, including their brain, external and internal, and all you will find are physical body parts, and every physical body part has physical DNA which will attest to the physical sex of that person.
And that's why your definition doesn't work and makes no sense.
And in the end is even less coherent than the definition that you were trying to avoid giving.
That's really the problem, isn't it though?
What you're trying to avoid.
That's the issue.
See, it's very clear, has never been more clear, that the gender ideologues, really what they actually want to talk about is the human soul.
Every day they move closer to the precipice, inching toward it step by step.
They talk about self-identity, and inner awareness, and gender identity, and subconscious sex.
Now, but what they mean, what they want to say, is that humans have a soul, And sometimes the soul doesn't match with the body.
They stop themselves from saying that because they don't want to admit that gender ideology is, through and through, a religion.
It's a religious, spiritual claim.
It's a matter of faith.
This is the secret they're trying to keep hidden, but they're coming closer and closer to dropping the scientific mask and admitting the truth.
That this is religious.
This is a religious claim.
They believe in the soul.
And when they say that a man is really a woman, They mean that he is spiritually a woman, that his soul is that of a woman.
That's what they mean.
Of course, understood that way, it still is nonsense, doesn't make any sense at all.
You cannot talk about souls without talking about God.
He's the one who makes the souls and the body.
And it's absurd, obviously, to claim that God would make some sort of mistake on the spiritual assembly line and accidentally plop a female soul into a male body.
That doesn't make any sense.
I mean, what sort of vision of God are you now postulating?
Some sort of bumbling fool up there in heaven that's just like, you know, throwing different souls into mismatching bodies, has no idea what's going on?
Besides, this concept of souls is built on a, this concept, the concept that the gender ideologues have, is built on this weird kind of dualism where the soul is seen as, once again, an entity located inside the body and steering it along, like the body is some sort of two-legged SUV.
But in reality, our souls and bodies exist in harmony with each other.
It's not that we are bodies and we have souls, or that we are souls and have bodies.
We are souls and we are bodies.
We cannot be one thing spiritually and the opposite thing physically.
That's a contradiction.
You might as well say that you have the body of a human and the soul of a raccoon or an oak tree.
It just doesn't make any sense.
So retreating into the spiritual realm will not actually save gender theory.
It actually makes it even more absurd than it was when it was judged purely on a scientific basis.
But at least if we are talking about it spiritually, At least then, the conversation is being had in an honest way.
At least the gender ideologues would finally be saying what they actually mean.
And that would be progress.
Though again, it will not save them or our friend Paul John Poles from being today cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show as we move into the members block.
