Ep. 1288 - Our Intellectual ‘Elites’ Aren’t Just Plagiarists. They’re Also Morons.
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Claudine Gay plagiarism controversy continues to expose the utter intellectual bankruptcy of our supposedly elite institutions. Also, the media mournfully commemorates the third anniversary of January 6th. The governor of Ohio backtracks, partially, on his veto of a bill that would have protected kids in the state from gender transition butchery. The host of Golden Globes last night delivers what is sure to go down as the worst comedic performance of the year. And a doctor on TikTok declares that "being unhealthy is okay."
Ep.1288
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, kids entertainment and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Unlock your Bentkey 14 day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/Walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
American Financing - Call (866) 569-4711 for a FREE mortgage review, or visit https://www.americanfinancing.net/.
- - -
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
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the Claudine Gay plagiarism controversy continues to expose the utter intellectual bankruptcy of our supposedly elite institutions.
Also, the media mournfully commemorates the third anniversary of January 6th.
The governor of Ohio backtracks partially on his veto of a bill that would have protected kids in the state from gender transition butchery.
The host of Golden Globes last night delivers what is sure to go down as the worst comedic performance of the year.
And a doctor on TikTok declares that being unhealthy is okay.
All that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
(upbeat music)
As we head towards a presidential election in November, there's one thing you can be sure of.
2024 will be a tumultuous year.
How will your hard-earned savings fare?
You will already see the impacts of inflation at the pump and the grocery store.
The dollar continues to lose buying power faster than wages can increase.
How are you protecting your savings?
You got to consider diversifying with gold from the Birch Gold Group.
For decades, gold has been the choice of investors and central banks to hedge against inflation.
If you have an IRA or 401(k) from a previous employer that's just gathering dust, call
Birch Gold and they will help you convert it into an IRA in gold.
You're not going to pay a penny out of pocket.
They'll simply convert that 401(k) into physical gold, which unlike digital currency, cannot
be tampered with.
Just text Walsh to 989898 and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold with an A+
rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of satisfied customers, and the exclusive
gold company of The Daily Wire for the past seven years.
You can trust Birch Gold, too.
Text Walsh to 989898 to claim your free info kit.
That's Walsh to 989898 and secure your savings now.
There's a documentary called Behind the Curve in which a group of people who think the earth
is flat decided to test their hypothesis.
They spend something like $20,000 on a laser gyroscope, and they run some tests, and lo and behold, they learn that the Earth, contrary to their assumptions, is in fact round, it turns out.
Their response to that was exactly what you'd expect.
At first, they didn't want to believe it.
They started rationalizing away the experiment.
We were taken aback by that, one of the men said.
He added, we obviously were not willing to accept that.
Now, that documentary came out a few years ago.
It was an interesting look at human psychology and how people respond when their own actions debunk their whole worldview.
I mean, literally their worldview in the case of the Flat Earthers.
It's not an easy thing to experience.
You know, it's one thing for someone else to prove you wrong.
That's difficult enough.
It's something else entirely to disprove your own ideology and to reveal how bankrupt and nonsensical it is.
Now, it's easy to point and laugh at Flat Earthers, but this is a phenomenon that we are seeing more often these days.
In fact, it's been playing out for the whole country over the past few weeks, as proponents of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or DEI, have witnessed the complete implosion of the president of Harvard University, Claudine Gay.
This is a woman who personifies everything DEI stands for.
She came from an extremely wealthy background.
Her family runs the largest concrete plant in Haiti.
She became the first black president of Harvard University, despite publishing only a handful of academic papers.
And she did it all based on three factors.
Her skin color, Her gender and her willingness to smear and destroy all of her ideological enemies along the way.
And in just a couple of weeks, she's been outed, as you know, as a complete moron and a fraud.
She proved that she's incapable of answering extremely basic questions in Congress.
She also demonstrated that she's incapable of writing anything without ripping off dozens of other papers.
Now, given all this, the cognitive dissonance for the DEI crowd has to be overwhelming right now.
I mean, after all, One of their holiest figures in their entire cult has just crashed and burned.
She's provided irrefutable evidence that DEI rewards mediocrity and destroys every institution that embraces it.
And that's difficult for these people to accept, as you can imagine.
And that's why in the wake of Claudine Gay's resignation as president of Harvard, there hasn't really been a debate over the merits of DEI or anything approaching a reasonable conversation.
Because the word debate suggests that two sides are presenting their arguments in a real and rational, you know, a clear and rational way.
But in this case, What's happening is that the anti-DEI side is making coherent arguments, while the pro-DEI faction can do nothing but perform, and posture, and vomit its emotions all over the place.
They're actually a lot less respectable and coherent than even the Flat Earthers, because at least the Flat Earthers proponents have arguments, as flimsy as those arguments may be, but that's still more than can be said for the DEI defenders.
Now the spectacle that aired on CNN over the weekend perfectly captures this dynamic.
It features two DEI advocates, one of them named Lulu Garcia Navarro, and then another one named Kara Swisher.
And they're speaking with two male counterparts who are actually sane.
There's Rehan Salam and Jonah Goldberg.
Now, in this debate, Goldberg and Salam explain why DEI is a scam used to smuggle leftist ideology under the guise of diversity.
The women on the other side of the discussion can only scowl and huff and repeatedly declare how infuriated they are by it.
Lulu Garcia Navarro also interrupts constantly while demanding that the two men on the other side of the debate stop interrupting her, which they never did.
So we'll play just a portion of this tire fire which aired on national television.
But before we get to the really disastrous part for the pro-DEI side, first here's Salam making the reasonable case against DEI.
You need to hear this first to fully appreciate the contrast.
So here it is, watch.
Has, in effect, the country moved on from the so-called racial reckoning we were all talking about after the murder of George Floyd?
I think there is a broad sense that that racial reckoning involved smuggling in certain really contentious ideological ideas that weren't ultimately about diversity, but rather were about imposing ideological uniformity.
When you're looking at DEI bureaucracies, what really is noxious about them is that they actually don't respect Ridiculo.
Ridiculo.
of diversity, including viewpoint diversity, including the fact that, look, in some cases,
you have groups that are overrepresented, and that can be okay.
You know, the point that J.D. Vance was making about the Dallas Mavericks is that it can be good
and healthy and reasonable in some domains to have overrepresentations.
Ridiculo. - Ridiculo.
It's what she said.
Well, you can say it's ridiculous.
You can make that assertion, but fundamentally, the fact that, you know, I am one second-generation
Asian-American on a panel of four.
I am massively, massively overrepresented.
But I think it's reasonable to say that you're going to judge people based on their merits.
Now, okay, put aside the inaccurate assertion from Chris Wallace that George Floyd was murdered.
The rest of that clip is logical, level-headed, perfectly coherent.
Now let's see if things remain on that level once the other side starts interjecting.
Let's watch.
When you're looking at organizations that count the batter, that are high performance organizations...
Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me.
This is the burden, and I can't tell you how infuriating I find it.
This is the burden that always comes with representation.
The idea is that because you are a person of color, suddenly,
it is, you are only there because it is some noblesse oblige, it is because some white guilt put you there because there
was some DEI initiative, and you can't win either way you look at it.
I mean, what infuriates me is you look at the whole Claudine Gay thing, and everyone's talking about DEI.
This woman cannot win or lose.
If she's there, it's because of DEI.
That they put her there because she's black.
If she loses and they kick her out, it's because she actually was never good enough to be there in the beginning.
You can't win in this situation.
And it is infuriating as a person of color to constantly have this cudgel put on our heads.
I get the argument that you can't win, but you also can't have it both ways.
You can't celebrate and tout that someone was hired and it's a wonderful thing to expand diversity and Harvard went full tilt talking about how great it was to hire the first black woman and then say all of a sudden... The first black person!
It wasn't even the first black woman, it was the first black person!
I don't care.
The point is, is that...
She got caught obviously plagiarizing.
And that is the, those are the facts that, you know, there's this massive... This was an ideological, very well-funded... The motives of the attack don't change the fact that she plagiarized.
And where I disagree with you, Kara, is when you say... When somebody fails who's white, and who's a man... Let me finish.
When someone fails... Yes, when someone, nobody, in fact there's books written about this, fail and then come back.
You know, look at Pivot, exactly, Pivot.
Okay, so there's a lot of incoherence in that too.
She was struggling to figure out what her point even was.
Well, you can't win.
You can't win or lose.
I mean, you can't lose.
No, you can't win.
What can't you do?
And then she says that, well, if she's hired, it's only because she's black because of diversity.
And then if she gets fired, it's only because she's a plagiarist.
Well, yeah.
I mean, that's pretty much how it works with DEI.
So that's the funny thing is that if it sets up a no-win scenario, Which, by the way, this didn't have to be a no-win scenario for Claudine Gay.
If she wasn't a plagiarist, then she'd still have the job.
But if it does set up a no-win scenario, it is DEI setting up that no-win scenario.
When you start hiring people, because she didn't really make the point well, but you could make the point, although it's an anti-DEI point, that when you hire people based on their race and you tout their hiring because of the diversity and inclusion, then you have automatically Um, created this sort of aura of suspicion around this person that they're not cut out for the job.
Because if they were cut out for the job, then you wouldn't need to say anything about the diversity.
You would just hire them based on the merits.
If you don't hire based on the merits, then people suspect that, oh, this person doesn't have the merits for the job.
So again, if there's a, if it, if it's a lose-lose scenario, it is one that DEI sets up.
But the whole segment goes on like this.
The women just keep shouting about how horrible it is to assume that Claudine Gay was a DEI hire, even though Harvard's policy for generations now has been to elevate mediocre candidates on the basis of their skin color.
And then, when it's pointed out that Claudine Gay plagiarized more than half of her academic writings, the response is to, you know, just attack the motivations of the people who uncovered the plagiarism.
But even if that's true, that people were politically motivated and uncovering, it's still plagiarism.
And what is her response to that?
When Jonah Goldberg points out that, yeah, well, whatever their motivations were, she's still plagiarized.
She says, oh, come on.
Oh, come on.
Yeah, but, yeah, but still, come on.
They have no response but just to screech incoherently.
And as with so many other debates on so many other issues, if you know nothing about the issue and you saw this discussion, right, you would immediately know that the women on the left are full of crap without knowing anything else.
Because you can tell they bring nothing but their emotions to the table.
All they have is their indignation and their feelings.
If you ask them for evidence to prove their assertions, they'll say something about books that have been written about this.
And this is why these people get in trouble for plagiarism so often, by the way.
They don't know how to provide citations.
They just say books.
Well, where'd you get that?
Uh, books?
I got it from books.
You know, there's books about it.
You know, if you read one of their papers and there's a little citation mark and you go down to the footnotes, you know, you look for where it is, it just says books.
And again, all this would be clear to any observer who had no background knowledge about the subject.
If you do have background knowledge, then it's even more obvious that these women on the left are full of crap.
Now, on this issue, like so many others, the left Uh, has no intellectual leg to stand on.
If there was any sort of substantive argument to be made for DEI, they would make it.
They would produce evidence, for example, that institutions become more effective as they become more diverse and inclusive.
They wouldn't just assert this as a fact, as they always do, they would show it, but they can't.
Instead, they simply insist that their position must be true, and even if it isn't true, only a bigot would point that out.
Because after all, pointing things out, noticing things, is the cardinal sin on the left.
That appears to be their entire argument when it comes to the entire Claudine Gay controversy.
You know, they won't try to claim that Gay didn't plagiarize.
It's clear that she did, repeatedly.
So, instead they appear to be arguing that it was our responsibility to not notice the plagiarism, or to ignore it once we did notice it, because she's a black woman.
Now this is the total intellectual bankruptcy that you find on the left, and since the left controls all of our powerful institutions, this intellectual bankruptcy lies at the core of all of them.
Now this is the larger problem underlying the Claudine Gay debacle.
The real problem with Claudine Gay's plagiarized papers isn't that they were plagiarized, it's the fact that even if they were original thoughts, they were still vapid and dumb and pointless thoughts.
You know, it used to be that Harvard presidents conducted original research on important topics like, you know, biochemistry.
But now they write useless garbage for a non-existent audience solely to advance themselves.
And this is the part of the whole Claudine Gay story that you don't hear much about, but it's far more important, actually, than the fact that she lifted several paragraphs from other authors.
It turns out that even if she hadn't plagiarized a word of her academic writings, Claudine Gay would still be a total fraud.
So first of all, let's just look at the topics of all of her publications.
Every single one of them is about black people or equity in some fashion.
That's not an exaggeration.
That's like the only thing she wrote about before she got this job.
That was Claudine Gay's obsession.
Her papers have titles like, The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation, and The Impact of Gender and Race on the Politics of Black Women, and The Effect of Economic Disparity on Black Attitudes Towards Latinos.
So this is what passes for research on diversity.
You know, it's the least diverse resume you can possibly imagine.
It's all the same subject.
It's like paging through a random author bio on Salon.com.
With a sole exclusive focus on black issues, Claudine Gay, for that reason alone, shouldn't have been in the running for any job anywhere in academia, but perhaps maybe a historically black college.
What was she doing running Harvard in the first place?
The only thing she cares about are black issues.
It's the only thing she's ever written about, talked about, the only thing she even pretends to care about.
But even for a historically black college, you would still be totally unqualified.
Now, to be fair to Claudine Gay, in and of itself, Maybe you could argue that this resume isn't necessarily disqualifying.
If Claudine Gay had been writing truly groundbreaking stuff about gender and race and the politics of black women or whatever, then maybe you might be inclined to give her a pass on this singular obsession that she has on skin color.
I mean, if she was actually saying something useful or interesting or unique or insightful about it, then okay.
But the deeper you dig, the worse it gets.
It turns out that Claudine Gay wasn't just a race-obsessed grifter who plagiarized whole paragraphs every now and then.
In fact, the data behind Claudine Gay's papers, the information she was passing off as new and important, was garbage.
Which, again, is really a much bigger deal than plagiarism, as big a deal as plagiarism is.
So let's zero in on one of the papers I mentioned a few seconds ago.
It's called The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation.
This paper was published in the American Political Science Review all the way back in 2001.
And it's an important paper because it's one of the handful of publications that somehow got Claudine Gay tenure at Stanford University before she moved on to Harvard.
And the basic idea of this paper is that when black people get elected to Congress, they make white people want to vote less.
And somehow this thesis made sense to Claudine Gay and everyone who peer-reviewed this document, and to that end, the paper contains all kinds of tables which point to data that supposedly proves this point, that whites just hate voting when black people are on the ballot.
And that's the kind of discovery that would confirm that white supremacy is real and white people are bad, and so that's the idea anyway, so of course both Stanford and Harvard loved it.
And of course, it was too good for them to check.
They loved the conclusion, so they didn't bother to check whether the data was any good.
Now, the problem is that a few decades later, a researcher named Jonathan Paulusen decided to look into the claim anyway, and he found that Claudine Gay's data contradicts itself.
At one point, Gay's data tables show that Missouri Congressman Bill Clay's presence on the ballot didn't have much impact on voter turnout.
But elsewhere, Gay's tables show that Bill Clay had a very significant effect on voter turnout, close to a 17% reduction in turnout, in fact.
Now, put aside the fact that it's absurd to claim that Bill Clay, simply because he's black, would make white voters want to stay home on Election Day, the question remains, why do Claudine Gay's tables contradict themselves?
Now, there's no clear answer to that question.
Powelson couldn't come up with an explanation.
Claudine Gay certainly hasn't offered one herself.
And here's the really incriminating detail.
Every time researchers have tried to look into this, Gay refused to provide the underlying data that she used to generate the tables in her papers.
In 2002, two professors, Michael Herron of Dartmouth and Kenneth Schatz of Stanford, presented a paper that effectively debunked Gay's entire methodology.
And they included this footnote, quote, That's pretty incriminating.
But here's the really amazing thing.
she would not release her data set to us.
That's pretty incriminating.
But here's the really amazing thing.
That footnote was removed from the final version of their paper.
If you try to find and download the paper online today, you're not going to find any
mention of Claudine Gay.
Because it's been scrubbed completely.
And instead, if you find the paper, you'll find that Heron and Schott debunk a hypothetical methodology without using Claudine Gay's name at all.
It's almost like someone wanted to protect her for some reason.
But writing for Jordan Schatchel's Substack, Chris Brunet got his hands on the first version of Heron and Schott's takedown.
And, you know, the one that hasn't been censored or redacted in any way.
And the full, uncensored footnote calls Gay's conclusions, quote, logically inconsistent.
It repeatedly calls out Claudine Gay by name.
And it includes a lot of technical details which no one, including Claudine Gay, has refuted.
The point is that this is a far bigger scandal than Claudine Gay lifting some paragraphs here and there, as bad as that is.
The fact is that her ideas and the data underlying those ideas were useless and fraudulent and apparently just, like, made up.
Her publications were race-based screeds that were only ever cited by a handful of academics, and those handful of academics very quickly proved that they were complete garbage.
And yet Gay somehow became president of Harvard, and documents criticizing the substance of her quote-unquote scholarship were scrubbed, and even now she's still making around $900,000 a year as a professor.
This is the state of Harvard University and American academia in general, and this is the key point.
Yes, our intellectual elites are often thieves and plagiarists.
You know, that certainly matters.
But what matters more is that they are just as intellectually bankrupt as they are morally bankrupt.
They are charlatans at every level.
And their power and influence is crumbling by the day.
And based on their panic over the past few weeks, we can be pretty sure that they're aware of it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
There's some great news for homeowners.
Interest rates have dropped and are now in the fives.
A lot lower than they were last year.
If you've been buried in high-interest credit card debt, now's the time to break free with American Financing.
American Financing can help you access the cash in your home to pay off your high-interest debt.
Last year, their salary-based mortgage consultants helped customers save an average of $854 a month.
It's like giving yourself a $10,000 raise a year.
And that's a great way to start the new year, to say the least.
And if you start today, you may be able to delay two mortgage payments.
But you've got to take advantage of this deal right now.
Call American Financing today at 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711.
866-569-4711. That's 866-569-4711. Or visit AmericanFinancing.net/NMLS182334/NMLSConsumerAccess.
NMLS 182334 NMLS Consumer Action.
timeraccess.org, APR for rates, and the five started, 6.406% for well-qualified buyers.
Call 866-569-4711 for details about credit costs and terms.
So we'll begin with this as we must, because over the weekend there was the solemn third
anniversary of January 6th, a sacred occasion where we all come together to remember the
time when members of Congress experienced a minor and temporary inconvenience for a
couple of hours.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
You know, it was an inconvenience that they never got over, because these people are not very accustomed to being inconvenienced.
And so they were traumatized.
And the media was traumatized.
And so on Saturday, there were a lot of dramatic displays of mourning and grief and remembrance.
But none were as unintentionally hilarious as what happened on MSNBC, where one of the anchors started to weep on air.
Let's watch that moment.
I'm going to try to get through this.
Thank you for what you did three years ago today.
Please tell me your thoughts on this third anniversary.
We are still in the midst of the same fight that began on January 6th, 2010.
And we have a lot at stake in this country.
And I think that it deserves every American's attention.
That's emotional.
That's tough to watch.
I haven't seen acting that good since the Jussie Smollett Good Morning America interview.
Or maybe good isn't the word here, but it is acting.
It is acting at any rate.
And you know, I think probably more than enough has been said about the media's increasingly desperate attempts to turn January 6th into a national tragedy on par with 9-11, or worse than 9-11 as they You know, there's not much else to say except that it is in a way fascinating and often unintentionally hilarious to see how these people really have constructed an alternate reality for themselves.
And it's a reality, you know, it's a reality that exists basically only in DC, like the national media there and politicians.
And this is their reality and no one else is a part of it.
So when you watch MSNBC, it's like you're watching a cable news broadcast from another planet.
You're tapping into something from some other dimension somewhere out in space.
Because I can tell you this, no MSNBC viewer, never mind people who are not MSNBC viewers, but even MSNBC viewers, none of those viewers actually feel this way about January 6th.
Now they might claim they do, But I guarantee that not even an MSNBC viewer is getting choked up in the year 2024 when remembering January 6th, 2021.
Okay, like nobody in real life, no actual human in real life actually considers that event to be 9-11 or Pearl Harbor or whatever.
Nobody does.
And even with 9-11, you know, with 9-11, You did not see people in media crying on air about it three years later.
There was a lot of emotion at the time, in that case, understandably.
Three years later, nobody was crying about it.
That doesn't happen with 9-11.
It doesn't happen with natural disasters or school shootings or whatever.
It doesn't happen with any legitimate tragedy where dozens or hundreds or thousands of people die.
I mean, there were, you don't have to go back to 9-11, I mean, there were historically bad wildfires in Hawaii, you know, just a few months ago.
And dozens of people burned to death, if not more.
I mean, we still don't even really know the full death toll, I don't think.
But I'm willing to bet that this guy on MSNBC, he could talk about that event, which is only a few months old, and in which dozens of people died horrific deaths.
He could talk about it without choking up, right?
He probably talked about it while it was happening.
While people were actually burning to death in real time without getting emotional about it.
And yet January 6th does this to him, supposedly.
It is, it's an alternate reality.
It's another universe.
And I should say, you know, I say that they're living in it.
They're not living.
I mean, they don't buy this stuff either.
But they're trying to construct it for everybody else to live in.
But we're not.
So it's just, it's just them alone.
Okay, we talked at the beginning of last week about the cowardly governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, who vetoed a bill that would have banned the chemical castration and butchery of gender-confused children in the state.
He vetoed the bill.
He claimed that he respected the parental rights of parents who want to mutilate their kids, and it's very important that we don't interfere with that, he said.
I obviously was not happy with that decision, and I expressed that point.
Well, on Friday, I started getting tagged in a bunch of tweets from leftists claiming that I had bullied Mike DeWine into changing his mind.
So, tweets like this from a guy named Dan Smith.
It says, The anti-trans mob bullied DeWine back into submission.
Don't be fooled.
This is more Matt Walsh and Libs of TikTok domestic terrorism using their hateful followers to intimidate conservative leaders into doing their bidding.
Now, I will say that if we bullied Mike DeWine into submission, that would be great.
Okay?
I am 100%.
I am totally in favor of bullying cowards and making them do our bidding.
Absolutely.
And if they cave to us in fear, then I say fantastic.
That's awesome to see.
And that is how we should treat these people.
Someone like Mike DeWine should absolutely be bullied and disgraced and mocked and belittled for the rest of his life, until he dies.
That's the kind of shame he should experience for the rest of his life.
But unfortunately, Dan Smith, I think, is giving me a little bit too much credit, because DeWine has not exactly backtracked, at least not all the way.
So, here's The Daily Wire and their report.
Governor Mike DeWine signed a limited executive order on Friday banning transgender surgeries on children, just one week after he vetoed a bill that would have prohibited all transgender procedures on minors.
DeWine's executive order comes as Republicans in the state pushed to override his veto of the Saving Adolescents from Experimentation Act.
A bill that would have protected children from transgender surgeries, as well as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, which have life-altering impacts and can harm fertility, bone development, and heart health.
In his executive order, DeWine said that he instructed the Ohio Department of Health to come up with rules to ban gender transition surgeries on minors.
According to the Ohio Department of Health, the emergency rules filed on Friday prohibit healthcare facilities, including ambulatory surgical facilities and hospitals, from performing gender surgeries on minors.
And DeWine had a press conference on Friday where he explained these new rules that he is going to be passing and let's watch that.
We'll provide protections for children and adults receiving care in this area from hospitals and clinics.
Candidly, as I expressed a week ago, I am concerned that there could be a Fly-by-night providers, clinics that might be dispensing medication to adults with no counseling and no basic standards to assure quality care.
With the rules we are announcing today that will take care of that.
We need to ensure that adults as well as children are protected.
These draft rules will be discussed at length with legislators and interested parties, and will include the following.
One, the requirement of a multi-disciplinary team to support an individual through care, including, but not limited to, an endocrinologist, a bioethicist, and a psychiatrist.
Second, the requirement- That's fine.
So, Just to skip ahead, he vetoed the outright ban on children receiving quote-unquote gender transition care, and now he is, through executive order, passing a ban on surgeries.
And then also, as he explains, he's putting in some regulations around adult gender transitions, not banning it, which those should be banned also, but requiring a waiting period and further medical consultations, and you've got to bring a bioethicist in.
Which, none of that means anything, by the way.
Like, there is no bioethicist who would be consulted for something like this who would not give it an immediate rubber stamp anyway.
Same for psychiatrists, because all these industries have been, are totally ideologically captured.
But, in other words, this is DeWine trying to thread the needle.
You know, trying to find a compromised position, and it's not even close to good enough.
Which means that we are not done bullying Mike DeWine.
I mean, he's still getting bullied.
Because this makes no sense.
I mean, first of all, yes, we should ban gender surgeries on minors, obviously.
But surgical mutilation is only one form.
And the much more common form of abuse like this is through puberty blockers and hormones.
So when we talk about kids being castrated, This is happening all the time.
Most of the time, though, it's happening chemically, which doesn't make it any better, clearly.
Like, that should also be banned.
What he's saying, and he doesn't phrase it like this, he's saying, okay, surgical castration of children is no longer allowed, but chemical castration is fine.
Which, I mean, makes no sense.
You're banning the less common form of the butchery and allowing the more common form of it.
And not only is that just wrong on its face, it also makes no sense logically.
I mean, this is the guy who claimed that we can't ban hormones and puberty blockers because parents and doctors know best.
Right?
That's the whole argument.
Okay, well what about the doctors and the parents, and they are out there, who would say that a 15-year-old girl needs to have her breasts removed so she can be a boy?
Or that a boy needs a vaginoplasty?
What about those doctors and parents?
So, in those cases, we're able to recognize that the parents and doctors are simply wrong, yet we can't do that with puberty blockers and hormones?
In fact, the same exact medical organizations that endorse and perform cosmetic double mastectomies on minors are the ones who also claim that kids need hormones and puberty blockers.
So if we recognize that double mastectomies for minors are not only wrong, but are, it's
not just wrong as an understatement, but this is like utter savagery and butchery.
Doesn't that prove then that these organizations can be wrong, can be horrifically wrong about
these sorts of things?
So then why would we trust them on anything, especially anything related to this very topic?
Like these medical organizations are doing something so horrible that you feel the need
to ban it by executive order, and yet in the next breath you cite the authority of these
same exact organizations to explain why you aren't banning hormones and puberty blockers?
How does that make any sense?
Now, there's going to be a temptation on the right to see this as progress.
And they'll say, hey, at least we're moving in the right direction.
And they'll want to see this as kind of incremental improvement.
But it isn't.
Now, actual incremental improvement, I'm in favor of.
If we're trying to move a certain direction, and I want to be all the way over here, but I can only make it to right here for now, then let's take that ground, and then immediately set to work to take the rest of it.
So, I'm all in favor of that.
In fact, the entire fight, as far as I'm concerned, the entire fight against the mutilation and abuse of children is itself, you know, an incremental move towards the ultimate goal.
Because, yes, protecting kids from this butchery is the most important thing, and so we have to do that.
And we should do it.
But it's not over at that point.
Because this entire industry, the entire gender transition industry, is corrupt and brutal and based on false science.
The entire industry should be taken down.
It shouldn't exist.
It shouldn't be allowed to exist at all.
And so that's the ultimate goal.
But you take what you can on your way, as you're chipping away and chipping away and chipping away.
But my point is that what you're seeing with someone like Mike DeWine, this is not incrementalism, okay?
This is not, we're moving slowly in that direction.
And we know that because we could have, as far as banning this stuff for kids, you could have done the whole thing in Ohio.
And he pushed it back, he pushed the ball back.
Because what he's trying to do is he's looking for a way To take trans ideology and make it palatable to conservatives, right?
So people like DeWine, they want to give us just enough, you know, just enough so that we think we've won on the issue and then we move on.
While the evil that we were fighting against continues virtually unabated.
That's what this is really about.
It's not about keeping things moving forward.
It's about stopping things in their tracks and saying, all right, we'll give you this
and then move on, it's over.
So really, although it appears that he is making some minor sort of moves against gender
ideology, he's actually trying to help it.
He's trying to find this sort of compromise position where we on the right will
Accept.
Like, the basic premise of gender.
Because, if your position is that, okay, sure, we're not going to perform surgeries on kids, but everything else is fine, including permanent chemical castration and sterilization of kids, if that's your position, then you are accepting the basic underlying premise of gender ideology.
And that's what he wants.
He wants us to accept the basic underlying premise.
Which we cannot do.
So, the bullying must continue.
Alright, speaking of people who should be bullied, the Golden Globes happened last night.
Obviously nobody cares, award shows are stupid, etc.
But the story of the night, if there is a story, is the guy they found to host the show.
And now the background here on this is that nobody wants to host the Golden Globes anymore.
You know, like 15 years ago, they would not have had this problem.
If they want to find someone to host the Golden Globes, I imagine it would have been a line a mile long of people in Hollywood who would love to host the show.
But now, you know, the show is a disaster.
It's a ratings disaster.
Nobody cares.
And so nobody wants to be associated with it.
And they asked a bunch of people.
They asked Chris Rock, and he didn't want to do it.
They asked Tina Fey, and she didn't want to do it.
They asked everybody.
Until they finally got to this guy, whose name is Joe Coy, who is allegedly a comedian.
Now all you need to know about Joe Coy is that he came onto the scene, whatever scene he's on, I don't know, by appearing on Chelsea Handler's show.
So that was his way into the business.
So he's on the Chelsea Handler comedic tree.
And that's a tree that has fallen over in the forest, and nobody heard it, and now it's rotting on the ground, and there are worms living inside it, and that's the tree that he's on.
So, needless to say, the guy bombed, and he bombed because he's an unfunny hack, but specifically because he tried to pull a Ricky Gervais and kind of roast the audience, but he doesn't have Ricky Gervais' wit and intelligence, which you kind of need.
I think more to the point, he doesn't have Ricky Gervais's actual willingness to offend these people, which if you're going to get up there and make fun of them for our amusement, then you have to be willing to upset them, which Ricky Gervais did, infamously.
So, Joe Coy's opening monologue ended up being the most milquetoast, corniest thing imaginable, and just to give you a quick taste of it, here he is kicking things off.
Let's watch a little bit of this.
Welcome to the 81st Annual Golden Globes.
I'm your host, Joe Coy.
I loved Oppenheimer.
I loved Oppenheimer.
I just got one complaint.
Needed another hour.
I felt like it needed some more backstory.
Oppenheimer answered a lifelong question that's been on my mind for years.
Yes, scientists do get laid.
As long as they look like Cillian Murphy.
I watched Barbie.
I loved it.
I really did love it.
I don't want you guys to think that I'm a creep, but it was kind of weird being attracted to a plastic doll.
It's just something about your eyes, Ryan.
Killers of the Flower Moon is so great.
Killers of the Flower Moon.
The cast is here.
The one thing I learned about that movie is that white people stole everything.
You guys stole everything.
Not like 97%.
You guys stole 100% of everything.
You took the land.
You took the oil.
You took the premise of the movie.
What?
That was your premise?
That's hilarious.
I don't care.
It's just that the room is really white.
I watched Saltburn.
I watched Saltburn.
Alright, so that's the basic idea.
You know you're bombing when he was getting some polite laughter there, but when you can't get a laugh, like a performative big laugh at the Golden Globes by making fun of white people, if you can't get that, I mean, that should be your crowd pleaser.
Like, that's something you fall back on if you're bombing and then you go, you know what?
And white people, am I right?
They're terrible.
And then you get applause and laughter and the whole crowd goes nuts.
But even that wasn't working for him as much.
It was so bad that you watched that.
And you almost are longing for the stinging comedic brilliance of Trevor Noah.
They might as well have Hannah Gadsby host next year.
They might as well just open the show with Hannah Gadsby rambling for 45 minutes about how she's sad and obese.
You might as well do that at this point.
It would at least be Well, it wouldn't be any funnier, but it would at least be maybe in a weird way slightly more interesting.
But here's the thing that's the saddest thing about this, is that the people in the audience were obviously not amused, but it's not because he's unfunny.
It's because they were actually offended by these tame, corny jokes.
So, just to show you what I mean, watch this moment where he has like the tamest joke imaginable about Taylor Swift.
And then look at her reaction, watch.
As you know, we came on after a football doubleheader.
The big difference between the Golden Globes and the NFL, on the Golden Globes, we have fewer camera shots of Taylor Swift.
I swear.
There's just more to go to.
Sorry about that.
And he apologizes too.
So the joke is not funny.
It's tired and lame.
But Swift isn't really reacting like it's a corny joke.
She's visibly mad about it.
She's offended by that joke.
And that's why Joe Coy is doing this and not Ricky Gervais.
These people cannot stand even the gentlest bit of teasing.
That's how seriously they take themselves.
The most cliched hacky jokes are too much.
Like, I bet if you called Taylor Swift on the phone and she picked up and you said, is your refrigerator running?
And she's like, yeah, I think it is.
And then you said, well, you better go and catch it.
She would hang up and cry.
She would cry over that.
It's such a devastating joke to her that she would cry over that.
And that goes to show.
I guess that also shows why nobody wants to host this thing.
All right, let's get to Woz Walsh.
Okay, on Friday I played a video of Grandma Madonna at her recent concert strapped to a safety harness, clinging to her safety bar and attempting to gyrate her hips in a humiliating display.
And Madonna's career for the past decade has been nothing but one humiliating display after another.
And as I explained on Friday, that's because Madonna is, like so many others in our culture, refusing to accept the reality of aging.
She refuses to age gracefully.
She refuses to be an older woman, which is what she is.
She's 65, still pretending to be a 25-year-old, you know, sex symbol.
And as I explained, you know, we hear people like Madonna complain about ageism, but we are not an ageist society.
We are an age-denying society because we refuse to accept aging for what it is and to respond accordingly.
And that was the point.
Anyway, my monologue on the topic managed to capture the attention of Madonna's fans on social media because she apparently still has a few fans and they're not happy.
So let's read some of their comments.
Bronnie says, ageist and misogynist.
This bloke takes the cake.
Who is he to say how a woman should behave in their 60s?
Who is he to say how people should dance or enjoy themselves?
Madonna brings joy to the world.
As far as I can see, all this guy does is bring other people down.
Who am I to say how a woman should behave in her 60s?
Well, for one thing, my qualification, really my only qualification, is that I have eyes.
And so I have eyes that I can see with.
And with my eyes, I can see, as anyone else can see, that a 65-year-old woman looks pathetic and ridiculous when she puts on aluminum spandex and gyrates around on stage.
I can just see it, and that's it.
Now, Madonna's free to do whatever she wants.
And I'm free to say whatever I want about it.
But here's the thing.
Madonna, at the age of 65, has chosen to still make her quote-unquote sex appeal, however much of it she has or doesn't have at this point, into her primary selling point.
So she has chosen to put that front and center on stage.
Right?
And when you do that, you cannot complain, at least with any credibility, when that becomes the topic of conversation.
So, in other words, if Madonna was a dignified, graceful, older lady, and she was on stage singing and entertaining everybody with her beautiful voice, and just wearing normal clothes for a woman that age to wear, Then in that case, yeah, I would be just a huge jerk if I made fun of how she looked or I made comments about how she doesn't have the sex appeal she had when she was younger, you know, because she has not chosen to make any of that the topic or to highlight it.
And so for me to focus on that would be obnoxious and wrong.
But that's not what's happening here.
She herself chooses to make that the focal point, right?
At this point, as far as she's concerned, all she has is that.
And so you can't complain, and she can't complain, when the rest of us notice and comment and are viscerally horrified by the sight.
That's just a natural reaction.
You see a 65-year-old woman carrying on the way that she does.
For most people, you feel second-hand embarrassment.
Again, it's a natural reaction.
Carly says, an age-denying society as we should be.
I'm going to age utterly disgracefully.
Have a blast doing it and beardy conservatives can whinge about it on social media until the cows come home for all I care.
Well, it's fine, Carly.
You can be disgraceful, by your own admission.
You can try to avoid the unavoidable reality of, you can try to deny the unavoidable reality of aging.
You can't avoid it.
You can try to deny it.
And you can look pathetic and embarrassing when you do it.
But what you should realize is that when people comment on it, they're not offended by it.
Like, no one's offended by Madonna.
Madonna's not nearly provocative or interesting enough to be offensive at this point.
Or we see any other woman, you know, older woman carrying on pretending she's still 25.
It's not offensive, okay?
You're not offending us, you're not like blowing our minds.
No, it's just, it is again second-hand embarrassment.
People are just cringing at how embarrassing you are.
And if that's the effect that you want to have on the world, and the legacy you want to leave, then, you know, if you want to be, it's like people don't even want to be in the same room as you because You're such a pathetic and pitiful specimen?
Then that's your choice, I suppose.
Jackie says, Madonna's not trying to be a sex symbol.
She is a sex symbol, as has been by hundreds of thousands seen around the world on her sold-out greatest hit store.
Long may she continue to piss you off, you pathetic irrelevance.
There's an interesting thing here where I noticed that the Madonna fans claiming that Madonna is still as hot as, you know, she was at 25.
All the people saying that are all women, right?
It's all a bunch of female Madonna fans claiming that she's still a sex symbol and she's still as hot as ever.
And that's because, for the women saying this, you want that to be the case, right?
Because you want to believe that you can retain your youthful beauty into your 60s.
And so that's really what this is all about.
It's, you know, Madonna is sort of an avatar for you, and if you can convince yourself that age is just a number, and Madonna at 65 is as sexy as ever, if you can convince yourself of that, then really you have convinced yourself that for your own sake, so that you can lie to yourself.
You're lying on behalf of Madonna, but really you're just lying to yourself.
And finally, you say Madonna is irrelevant, but here you are ranting about her for 10 minutes, you're obsessed with Madonna, and you say she's irrelevant.
Hmm.
You know, I've done, what is it, one, probably 12, almost 1,300 shows at this point.
I'm not sure what we're up to.
So almost 1,300 shows, and let's just Conservative estimate, let's say that's like 1,200 hours of content.
And of those 1,200 hours, I have talked about Madonna collectively for maybe like 40 minutes out of 1,200 hours.
So, I'm not sure if obsessed is quite the right term here.
Also, just so you know, In the exact same show, one segment before that, I spent the same amount of time talking about 10-foot aliens at the mall in Miami.
So, don't flatter yourselves too much, Madonna fans.
Time to start 2024 off right.
The fight to reshape our culture has never been more crucial.
At The Daily Wire, we are leading the charge.
We've got some incredible things lined up for you this year.
With new series like the hilarious Mr. Bertram coming early 2024, it's the Daily Wire's
first ever animated series featuring an all-star cast including Adam Carolla, Roseanne Barr,
Megyn Kelly, and more.
Plus, brace yourselves for the Daily Wire's highly anticipated series, The Pendragon Cycle,
where we're breathing new life into the legend inspired by the works of acclaimed Christian novelist
Stephen R. Lawhead.
Filming just wrapped, and right now you can catch a sneak peek of what's to come with our incredible
Pendragon Cycle production diaries at dailywire.com.
And the 2024 election will be one of the most pivotal in our country's history.
The Election Wire is your source of truth, bringing you everything from the campaign trail to the debates and election day.
And for our younger audiences, DailyWire Plus members can now unlock our brand new kids app, BendKey, at no additional cost.
This is where you can find shows that kids love and parents can trust.
And of course, you'll be the first to see Snow White and the Evil Queen, featuring our very own Brett Cooper, exclusively on BendKey.
In 2024, your DailyWire Plus membership will give you more of myself, Ben Shapiro, Candice Owens, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, Jordan Peterson, PragerU.
But, you know, that's just the beginning.
This will be DailyWire's biggest year ever.
But we can't do it without your support.
Join the fight to reshape and take back our culture today at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now, let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
And that process was essentially completed when every major medical institution in the Western world decided to wholeheartedly endorse, and in many cases actively engage in, the castration and sterilization of gender-confused children.
The moment that the medical industry as a whole, over the objection of a sane minority, declared that actually biological sex doesn't exist, and that actually turns out men can have babies, The game was over.
That was it.
The entire industry had been ideologically captured, and now it has less scientific credibility than your local psychic or tarot card reader or whoever.
But that was not the end of the story, because things only got worse from there.
The medical field Cannot kill its own credibility twice, but it can dig up the rotting corpse of its credibility, light the corpse on fire, and then toss it into the deepest depths of the sea.
And that seems to be its plan now.
So that brings us to the war on so-called fatphobia, which we've talked about many times on the show.
And we know that plus-size TikTok influencers and others in that vein have been on a crusade against the imaginary concept of fatphobia for a while now.
But increasingly, Doctors, who might also be TikTok influencers, many of them are, are joining the fight to defend morbid obesity.
Libs of TikTok alerts us to one of these doctors.
Dr. Nicole van Groningen has a TikTok account with nearly 50,000 followers, where she often discusses the dangers of fatphobia.
Not the dangers of obesity, but the dangers of fatphobia.
And in fact, she says that TikTok ...helped to open her eyes to this problem.
Her medical textbooks may tell her that obesity is bad, but TikTok says that it isn't.
And she, like so many other medical professionals, is siding with TikTok on this one, so watch.
I am tired all the time and something is wrong.
And he said, you just need to lose some weight.
One of the things I've learned as a doctor on TikTok is how many people are going to the doctor and just being told to lose weight.
I have always known, trust me, that weight can be a source of shame and stigma and something that actually stops people from going to the doctor because they want to go get help with their problems, but they don't want to be weighed.
They don't want to get a lecture on how they need to lose weight.
Especially when they're things that have nothing to do with their weight and people want to avoid that lecture on weight loss when they just want help with their nausea or something.
I think learning from all of you creators and commenters how big of a problem this is has really made an impression on me and quite frankly has changed my practice.
So I actually ask patients if it is okay to talk about weight.
If they don't want to be weighed at an appointment, that is okay.
We actually are changing our electronic health record to make it so Weight isn't even printed out on their discharge paperwork if they don't want to see it.
Because this is crazy.
You should be able to go to a doctor for a legitimate health concern and not have it blamed on your weight.
This is not okay.
Well, that's good.
Yeah, let's not put the weight on their health records, you know.
Because, right, increasingly we want to remove all actual physical information about people from their health records.
Because you don't want to put weight on there, because it might offend them.
Obviously, you don't want to put their biological sex on there, because that might offend them.
And you don't want to put their height on there, because a lot of people are self-conscious about that.
And, you know, basically, so everyone's health record just says That's the entire record.
But even that might be, because that's limiting, too.
According to our health records, we're all just like these amorphous, vague blobs of nondescript matter.
That's what our health records will say about us.
Now, first of all, I may not be a doctor myself, but I'm pretty sure that if you are struggling with nausea, Your weight could have everything to do with it.
In fact, pretty much any ailment involving your stomach or your digestive tract can be caused or exacerbated by obesity.
Also, any ailment involving your internal organs or your bones or your heart or any other part of your body can be caused or exacerbated by obesity.
This is one of the many basic medical facts that this medical doctor apparently doesn't understand or is pretending to not understand.
She also says that You know, again, she won't talk about weight with her patients if they don't want to hear about it, which is exactly the same as a dentist agreeing to not talk about cavities, or a fire inspector agreeing to not tell you about fire hazards, or a mechanic agreeing to ignore issues with your braking system.
Like, the person's whole job is to address those kinds of issues.
Now, it's true that, you know, it makes me feel bad when the mechanic tells me that I need new brake pads.
I don't like hearing it.
It makes me feel all icky and sad, and I don't like it.
So when he comes back with the brake pad news, I say to myself, man, I wish I didn't need new brake pads.
But what I don't say is, man, I wish he didn't tell me about the brake pads.
That's because, if there is an issue with the brake pads, it's much better that I know than I not know.
And I'd much prefer a mechanic who identifies these problems and tells me about them than one who can't identify them, or worse, can, but doesn't tell me.
And this logic clearly applies to doctors, too.
I should say that it applies to doctors especially.
But it gets worse from Dr. Nicole, if you can believe it.
Let's watch this next video from her.
Here's my hot take as a doctor.
I totally agree.
It is okay to be fat.
We don't say that enough, but it needs to be normalized.
If you are fat, that is okay.
It is typically not a problem that requires immediate solving.
It is not an emergency.
You don't have to drop everything in the pursuit of being not fat.
Aaron said this other thing in a different video that I totally agree with as well, is that it is okay to not be healthy.
We act like it is this moral failing, this cardinal sin that you deserve a scarlet letter if you are not healthy.
And there's a name for that and that's called healthism.
Now don't get me wrong, in my line of work there's a lot of people that I see that want to gain weight, lose weight, take other measures that they think will improve their health in some way.
And by all means, that's what we're here for.
We're here to help you with that and be supportive of that.
But a good doctor will not judge you for being fat.
They will not judge you for being unhealthy.
They will not judge the decisions that you made or the decisions that were made for you, which is the much more likely scenario.
That got you to the point where you are right now.
We're here to help you with the changes that you want to make and if you are someone who wants to lose weight for health purposes and there are certain scenarios where losing weight can be health promoting, we're here to help you with that.
We are also here to help you if you decide to not make any changes at all.
We're still there.
Now it's hard to know where to begin except to say that a doctor who announces it's okay to be unhealthy should be immediately fired and then bankrupted by malpractice lawsuits.
If you are a patient of Dr. Nicole, then you would be better off getting on a plane
and flying down to Brazil and then hiking into the Amazon to seek medical care from a tribal shaman
in a mud hut somewhere deep in the jungle.
In fact, a lot better off actually, because the shaman may not have the best remedies
for your ailments, but at least he'll recognize that your ailments are ailments.
He at least knows that being unhealthy is bad.
And although Amazonian shamans have probably never actually witnessed obesity firsthand,
We can be pretty certain that if they did see it, they would recognize that it's not ideal.
So, no matter how you slice it, this American doctor has less medical knowledge and credibility than somebody whose scientific understanding of the world hasn't advanced beyond the year 3000 BC.
I mean, that's how bad things are now.
She also assures us that Being unhealthy is not a moral failing.
And, you know, that can be true in certain circumstances.
I mean, if you have multiple sclerosis or arthritis or brain cancer, then your illness certainly is not your fault.
But many forms of unhealthiness are, in fact, at least partially, a result of your moral failings.
Like, physical unhealthiness is one of the main immediate consequences of moral failings, in fact.
Obesity is the prime example.
You become obese by eating too much and exercising too little.
In other words, you become obese through gluttony and sloth, which are not only sins, but two of the seven deadly sins.
They're both bad enough to have made the top seven.
That doesn't mean that you should wallow in your self-loathing and guilt if you're fat.
Quite the opposite.
Realizing that your obesity is indeed your fault and is indeed a moral failing, is empowering.
It means that you have the power to change it.
You made yourself fat, you can now make yourself unfat.
And this is good news.
And if a patient doesn't want to hear the good news, that's all the more reason why they should hear it.
But they're not going to hear it from Dr. Nicole, who isn't interested in helping her patients be healthier.
Instead, she wants to free them from the bonds of what she calls "healthism."
Now, it had been about three weeks since the left invented a new "ism" word,
so we have a new one just in time, and it's "healthism."
But what is "healthism"?
Well, she uses the term, but the exact definition isn't clear from the context.
You know, we know that racism is supposed to be when you hate someone based on their race.
Sexism is when you hate someone based on their sex.
So is healthism when you hate someone because they're healthy?
I mean, the fat acceptance crowd does tend to resent people who lose weight and get healthy.
Does that make them healthist?
Are they health-phobic?
That would actually make a little bit of sense.
Which is how you know that that's not what's meant by the term.
So I googled it, and here's what I found on a website called withinhealth.com.
They have a whole article about healthism, and this is what it says.
"Healthism refers to a set of attitudes and beliefs that health is the most important pursuit in life,
and that it is the personal responsibility of the individual and solely within that person's control.
Those who subscribe to these beliefs view the pursuit of health, which is often conflated with thinness, as a moral
good."
Now, just a quick note here. The pursuit of health is a moral good.
Now, it may not be the most important pursuit in life, but given that the continuation of your life and your ability to pursue anything at all depends on your health, it should at least be, like, in your top five of priorities.
And none of this should be remotely controversial.
It especially should not be controversial among medical professionals, but here we are.
Reading on.
The problem with this is that healthism doesn't acknowledge that health isn't entirely within a person's control.
There are also larger biological, social, cultural, and environmental issues that contribute to poor health, such as genetics, poverty, violence, trauma, environment, diet, culture, and discrimination, and oppression of all kinds, including ableism, racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, Fat phobia and weight stigma.
Healthism is insidious and stigmatizing, harming people living in larger bodies as well as many other marginalized identities.
Fat is a term that has been reclaimed by higher weight individuals, and fat people are subject to weight stigma in many different settings by many different people.
These include school, work, healthcare, and even the home by family, friends, healthcare providers, teachers, coaches, and colleagues.
Fat people are often viewed and labeled as immoral, irresponsible, lacking willpower, lazy, weak, slovenly, unmotivated, undisciplined, unintelligent, and so much more.
Healthism doesn't just harm people living in larger bodies.
Either, it is used to maintain ableism, racism, transphobia, classism, and more.
Well, that's no surprise.
All of the new isms and phobias they invent are always connected to the other isms and phobias, so if you're guilty of one, you're automatically guilty of all the rest, along with whatever new ones they might make up in the future.
That's how this works.
But whether they call this healthism or fatphobia or whatever new buzzword they might invent tomorrow, it doesn't change the truth, which is that it is good to be healthy, and it is not good to be unhealthy.
A medical professional like Dr. Nicole certainly understands that fact.
Notice how she herself appears to be in excellent physical shape.
So she is obviously taking care of her body.
But if you want to destroy your own body, she will be there, standing on the sidelines, with pom-poms, cheering you on.
And that's because she wants you to be fat and weak and sick.
That's what all these people want for you.
They wish for you a short and mediocre life.
Joy, health, fitness, longevity.
These are the things they want for themselves, but not for you.
And speaking of insidious, it really doesn't get more insidious than that.
And that is why Dr. Nicole, and every doctor like her, is today cancelled.
