Ep. 1317 - Major Medical Organization Gives Male 'Breastfeeding' Its Stamp Of Approval
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a major medical organization has come out in support of male "breastfeeding." If you thought that major medical organizations had already lost all the credibility they possibly could, think again. Also, Dr. Phil and Joe Rogan discuss the dangers of "gender affirming care." A new study shows that the COVID vax was not as safe as they told us. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. And Beyonce has a new country song out. My take on the song might surprise you.
Ep.1317
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 20% off SITEWIDE during our Presidents Day Sale! Shop here: https://bit.ly/3I7WaAr
Unlock your Bentkey 14-day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Shop my merch collection 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.
PureTalk - Get a FREE Samsung 5G smartphone. Enter promo code: Walsh at
https://bit.ly/3Mk5JiE
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Matt
Policygenius - Get your free life insurance quote & see how much you could save: http://policygenius.com/Walsh
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
- - -
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 Wall Show, a major medical organization has come out in support of male, quote-unquote, breastfeeding.
If you thought that major medical organizations had already lost all the credibility they possibly could, well, think again.
Also, Dr. Phil and Joe Rogan discussed the dangers of gender-affirming care, quote-unquote.
A new study shows that the COVID vax was not as safe as they told us, and that is just the tip of the iceberg, of course.
And Beyonce has a new country song out.
My take on the song might surprise you.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Pure Talk believes in American values and that free should mean exactly that, free.
When you switch to Pure Talk today, you'll get a free Samsung 5G smartphone.
There's no four-line requirement, no activation fee, just a free Samsung that's built to last with a rugged screen, quick charging battery, and a top-tier data security system.
Qualifying plans start at just $35 a month for unlimited talk, text, 15 gigs of data, and a mobile hotspot.
Pure Talk gives you phenomenal coverage on America's most dependable 5G network.
It's the same coverage you know and love, but for half the price of the other guys, the average family saves almost $1,000 a year.
So I challenge you to choose a company that shares your values.
Let Pure Talk's expert U.S.
customer service team help you make the switch today.
Go to puretalk.com to claim your eligibility for your free Brand new Samsung 5G smartphone and start saving on wireless today.
Again, go to puretalk.com slash Walsh to switch to my cell phone company, Pure Talk.
Last summer, I did a monologue on an especially disturbing new phenomenon, which is that some trans-identified males claim that they can breastfeed their children.
And at the time, this was not a widespread idea.
It didn't have any official support in medicine, which is saying a lot, given the generosity that the medical establishment now embraces.
But at the time anyway, a few months ago, this was outside of Outside of what they would accept, and outside of one cow fetishist on TikTok and two inconclusive reports published in a couple of journals, there was never any real endorsement of this practice.
And there was good reason for that, which is that it's a grotesque, dangerous, completely insane, and wrong on every imaginable level.
What trans activists call breast milk is, in fact, a secretion that results from taking a drug called Domperidone, which isn't approved for this purpose in the U.S.
or Canada because it can cause cardiac problems in infants.
And beyond that, we don't know exactly what chemicals are contained in this secretion, especially when the so-called mother, otherwise known as the father, is often taking cross-sex hormones.
And even if you pretend that this secretion is somehow safe, the fact remains that it can't replace a mother's breast milk because men can't produce much of it, even when you pump them full of unapproved, off-label drugs.
So, a whole bunch of reasons why the whole thing is completely disgusting and wrong.
And that should have been the end of the whole discussion, which is really a discussion that never should have started to begin with, but...
But it wasn't.
Instead, in June, the CDC announced that men can breastfeed in certain circumstances, although they conceded that, quote, the nutritional needs of the infant might not be met.
The CDC also didn't address the fact that the FDA warns that Dom Peridone, quote, can pass into breast milk in small amounts and can sometimes give babies an irregular heartbeat as a result.
Now, Call me crazy, but even putting aside the irregular heartbeat, which is bad enough on its own, I would say that if the nutritional needs of the child aren't met, then that would be reason enough to not do it at all under any circumstance.
Now, there are circumstances where this can be okay to do, but the baby's nutritional needs aren't going to be met.
That doesn't make any sense.
Because the whole point is supposed to be meeting the nutritional needs of the child.
But as we'll see, in fact, meeting the needs of the child has nothing to do with this at all.
Then, several months later, the National Health Service in Britain went even further.
According to a letter from the medical director of the University of Sussex Hospital's NHS Trust, clear and overwhelming evidence, quote-unquote, shows that secretions produced by men are, quote, This is the quote, ideal food for infants.
In case you're not familiar with NHS trusts, they're basically divisions of the National Health Service and they've increasingly been pushing the most extreme aspects of trans ideology, including the lingo and everything else.
For example, this Sussex Hospitals Trust was the first British trust to use terms like chest feeding and birthing parents.
So, that's what we're dealing with here.
Now, the Sussex NHS Trust is once again ahead of the curve in terms of promoting a new frontier in trans insanity.
The trust medical director states that quote, "The term milk is meant to be neutral and is not gender-based.
The evidence which is available demonstrates that the milk is comparable to that produced following the birth of a
baby."
The letter dismisses complaints about the medication used to induce this quote-unquote lactation,
saying the medicine is quote, "similar to the natural hormones which encourage lactation."
So this is the first instance of a major medical institution declaring that
There's no difference whatsoever between male lactation and female breast milk.
It's a significant moment, even though by now it's pretty familiar.
We are witnessing once again an attempt by alleged experts to normalize a barbaric and perverse practice that directly harms children.
And it's catching on.
Various trans activists are again claiming that the science is now settled on this point.
Yep, men can breastfeed just like women.
Everything that humanity has known on this subject since time immemorial, turns out it was all wrong.
It's all false.
That's what they're saying anyway.
Here's just one example of a trans activist making that claim.
Hi, my name's Ash and welcome to LGBTQ plus birth research.
Today's video signposts a case study where breast milk produced by a trans woman after she successfully induced lactation was analysed for its nutritional qualities.
This study centres a trans woman who successfully breastfed her baby.
She induced lactation via hormone therapy, using Domperidone as a galactagogue, breast pumping and then directly breastfeeding her infant.
She co-fed with her partner, the baby's gestational parent, meaning the parent who carried the pregnancy, for the infant's first four months of life.
The decision to stop breastfeeding was maternal choice.
The medical management of how lactation was induced, including medications, dosages and timings, are outlined in the study.
For milk analysis, the mother provided four samples of frozen expressed breast milk and each sample was collected approximately one month apart.
All samples were warmed, hand agitated and analysed using a form of infrared spectroscopy.
All samples were run twice and a mean result was generated.
When compared with average nutritional values of breast milk expressed by cisgender women 10 to 12 weeks after delivery, values that were taken from a large systematic review of milk analysis, these breast milk samples showed nutritional values that were equal to or higher for fat, protein, lactose, and calories.
Now, when I last talked about this issue, I went into some detail about the document that's referenced in that clip, which is from a UCLA researcher named Amy Weimer.
And you see this document cited all the time by trans activists.
They claim that it's proof that secretions from men are indistinguishable from breast milk.
But one thing that we know...
And this is anytime, anytime a trans activist cites a study which allegedly proves some totally outlandish thing that again contradicts everything humanity has known since the beginning of human civilization.
Anytime, anytime that's the case.
Once you look at the study, you'll discover that the study does not even rise to the level of a legitimate scientific study.
And that's the case here.
So the first thing you have to understand about this document is that it's not a study.
It's not peer-reviewed.
There's no control group.
There's no real analysis of anything.
Instead, this is a case report that goes into some detail about one male patient Who apparently took Domperidone, this drug, without medical authorization to induce lactation.
This case report does not provide any information about whether this practice is safe.
It doesn't go into any detail about the effect this has on the child.
Were there any effects?
What are the side effects?
That's not even mentioned.
That's not even a concern.
They don't talk about it.
They don't even talk about what's in the secretions that this person produced.
There's no detailed accounting of anything.
Instead, the report calls for a future analysis into 24-hour milk samples so researchers can provide a, quote, detailed assessment of macronutrients.
So in other words, again, this study is just nothing.
It's just nothing.
It is a single, anecdotal case report of one guy who decided to dose himself with off-label drugs, and then some stuff started coming out of his nipples, and he gave it to his kid.
That's it.
That's what the whole study is.
And trans activists will take that and say, see, it proves it!
Proves men can breastfeed just like we could.
No woman could ever breastfeed again, and men could do all of it, and it would be fine.
Based on this one thing they found of this one guy doing something.
Now the second most important thing to understand about documents like this is that Of course, the people writing them have a vested interest in affirming the delusions of trans-identified patients.
Amy Weimer is not a disinterested, impartial observer.
Quite the opposite.
She goes around giving talks explaining that she's doing everything she can to increase the number of patients at UCLA's gender clinic, which she calls, quote, her baby.
So take this footage from three years ago, for example.
In this clip, Weimer also brags that children as young as five years old can get treated in her gender health clinic.
Watch.
We see kids and what services are they eligible for.
And in our primary care medical home, we see patients of all ages.
I think our youngest gender health patient right now is five.
And we can, you know, support them with pubertal suppression, if and when it's indicated, as well as sort of the pubertal induction hormone management.
So we can do hormone management across the age spectrum.
Now in case you couldn't hear what Amy Weimer said, I'll repeat, quote, in our primary care medical home, we see patients of all ages.
I think our youngest gender health patient right now is five, and we can support them with pubertal suppression when it's indicated, as well as sort of pubertal induction hormone management.
So we can do hormone management across the age spectrum.
Okay, so.
As young as five.
In other words, there's no age limit that Amy Weimer is willing to share.
She's happy to take children as young as five years old and convince them that they're in the wrong body, and then apparently not long afterwards, at some point, she's fine with giving them sterilizing hormones and puberty blockers, which can permanently damage these children for the rest of their lives.
So this is the caliber of expert that trans activists and medical organizations are now citing.
Trans activists are finding doctors who have a clear financial interest in supporting their narrative, And they're citing these doctors as if they're an impartial source.
And they're citing not only that, but they're citing these doctors and using this as evidence to upend everything we know about science.
So this has nothing to do with medicine.
For doctors, it's about money and ideology.
For trans activists, it's about narcissism, which is obviously a very powerful force that guides pretty much everything they do.
These are people who don't mind surgically removing the healthy body parts of children or sterilizing them for life.
That's not because trans activists have the well-being of these kids in mind, obviously.
It's because they see harming children as a way to validate their own delusions and rationalize their own disastrous life choices.
So, they were never going to give up on the fantasy that men can breastfeed children.
Whether it hurts children or not isn't the point.
I mean, they don't even cover that in their studies because they don't care.
These people demand affirmation above all else.
It's why the world exists in their view.
Everyone exists just to affirm them.
Even their children.
Even an infant baby exists for this reason and this reason alone.
That's obviously the whole reason that they're insisting on this perverse male breastfeeding fantasy.
And it's a perverse fantasy even if it was theoretically possible to one day concoct some kind of wonder drug that would enable men to breastfeed just like women.
Okay, no such thing exists right now, probably no such thing will ever exist, but let's just say, in theory, that it was possible.
Well, in order to get to that theoretical endpoint, it would require years of experimentation.
Experimentation on babies, specifically.
You would need to keep trying things, keep dosing these babies with drug-laced male nipple secretions, until you finally come up with a cocktail that works.
So, you're putting babies in danger, you're using them as lab rats, which is what would need to happen in order to have the studies, like, what's the long-term effect of giving this stuff to babies?
Well, how do we know that?
The only way to know is to give it to babies, and then check back in a year, two years, ten years, and find out.
So they're the lab rats.
And all for what?
All to solve a problem that is not a problem.
All to find a way around biological reality, all to satisfy the urges and desires of these men.
And speaking of which, you know, if you're wondering, what is the real nature of these desires?
Like, why exactly would any of these men want to do this?
Well, we have an answer to that, and it pretty much confirms what you already suspect.
This week, a column written in 2017 by a trans-identified man using the name Dana Fried, F-R-I-E-D, just resurfaced on social media.
It went pretty viral.
It was published on a website originally called The Stranger.
And the title of the piece is, My First Time Breastfeeding My Daughter.
Okay, and here's how it begins.
I'm going to read this to you.
When my baby attached to my breast, there was an incredible chemical cascade that ran through my entire body like lightning.
Imagine the most electric thing a partner has ever done to you, then multiply it by ten.
I could feel my brain rewiring, creating pathways that would permanently connect me to my child, and yeah, I kind of got off on it.
Don't judge.
That's what he wrote.
So, this was a man, quote-unquote, breastfeeding his child, comparing it to a sexual act with his partner, and saying that he got off on it.
So this is a man confessing, right out in the open, that he derived sexual pleasure from feeding a child and artificially induced secretion coming from his chest.
That's what he said.
It's like, out in the open, what you'll find very often with these people is like, if you listen to them talk, they'll just come right out and say it.
And so this constitutes, among other things, obviously, the sexual abuse of an infant.
That's not even getting into the chemicals that are probably contained in the secretion.
But of course, because sexualizing children is the goal of the Trans Call, this column was well-received at the time when it was published in the trans community.
For example, the top comment on this article on the trans subreddit reads,
"This tale gives me hope and majorly inflames my baby itch."
Another comment reads, "Brought tears to my eyes."
Such a profound and moving post.
That's really powerful stuff on the power of the trans experience.
Amazing.
You are simply inspiring.
This again is a man directly confessing that he got a sexual, that he was using a baby for sexual gratification, and these other trans activists on Reddit are calling it inspiring.
So, think about that for a second.
Now, the website Redux has publicly identified the man who wrote this column as a Google employee.
Redux tells me that they're confident it's the same guy for several reasons.
For one thing, in the article, Fryde says he moved to Seattle after working in Virginia.
It's the same work history that a longtime Google employee using the same name lists on his Crunchbase profile.
Additionally, the illustration of Fryde in The Stranger, which has since been taken down, looks a lot like the Google employee.
And on social media, The Google employee spends a lot of time writing about being a trans-identified mother, quote-unquote, to a young child.
He's also, as you'd expect, very angry much of the time.
So, what's so disturbing about all this is that, I mean, of the many things that are disturbing about it, is that this article from Dana Fried came out seven years ago.
And yet, as far as I can tell, other than Redux, no one has bothered to look into this guy at all.
The person who wrote that article in The Stranger has confessed to the sexual abuse of a child.
Seven years ago.
He's admitted to one of the most despicable and grotesque crimes a human can commit, and he hasn't been held accountable at all for it.
Redux first identified him as a Google employee nearly a year ago, and Google never responded to that accusation.
You'd have to imagine that if a publication publicly accused a Google employee of writing, I don't know, some naughty tweets about George Floyd, Then Google would certainly terminate that employee immediately.
But in this case, when one of their employees is accused of deriving, not accused, has confessed deriving sexual gratification from feeding an artificial secretion to a child, they don't care.
In fact, other than Redux, no one seems to care at all.
This puts the endorsement from the NHS in Britain in a new, even more disturbing light.
Because what's happening, in effect, is that major medical organizations, including the CDC and the NHS, are giving men the green light to use infants for sexual pleasure.
And they're doing it because they think they can get away with it.
They're dropping the pretense of gender-affirming care entirely, basically.
They're not even pretending to care about children anymore.
Instead, they're directly endorsing child abuse and pedophilia.
Which is what this is.
And this was always where the trans cult was going to lead.
So the moment it's been building towards for years, and now without any medical basis, but with the full endorsement of the medical establishment, that moment is here.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
North Korea is testing missiles.
Iran is growing increasingly aggressive.
And, oh, by the way, we have a presidential election coming up in November, if you haven't heard.
So how do you protect your family in the midst of all this chaos?
A great place to start is by protecting your savings.
It's not too late to invest in gold with Birch Gold Group today.
Unlike many other investments, gold can act as a safe haven during turbulent times by providing a hedge against inflation and economic uncertainty.
Birchgold will help you convert your existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold, and it will cost you nothing out of pocket.
While diversification does not eliminate risk entirely, Birchgold's experts can help you manage and reduce, providing a more resilient foundation for your financial well-being.
I urge you to talk to one of their trusted experts today.
Just text WALSH to 989898 and Birchgold will send you a free info kit on gold with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of happy customers.
I encourage you to check out Birchgold today.
They've been the exclusive gold company of The Daily Wire for the past seven years.
We trust them, and you can trust them, too.
Text WALSH to 989898 to claim your free info kit today.
That's WALSH to 989898 to secure your savings now.
I'm here today because my mother chose life, and you're here today because your mother chose life as well.
The miracle of life is a gift that everyone deserves because every life is precious.
That's why we've partnered with Preborn's network of clinics.
Preborn introduces unborn babies to their mothers through ultrasound, and after hearing her baby's heartbeat and seeing her precious baby, she can be twice as likely to choose life.
Through love, compassion, and free ultrasounds, Preborn has rescued over 280,000 unborn babies, and every day their clinics rescue 200 unborn babies.
That is a true miracle.
One ultrasound is just $28, cost of a dinner, or you can sponsor five ultrasounds for $140, helping to rescue five unborn babies' lives.
Any amount will help, all gifts are tax deductible, and 100% of your donation will go towards saving babies.
To donate securely, dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby.
That's pound 250, say the keyword baby, or go to preborn.com slash Matt.
That's preborn.com slash Matt.
Okay, before we move on from this topic, I wanted to play a little bit of this.
This is an excellent exchange between Dr. Phil and Joe Rogan, as Dr. Phil was appearing on Joe Rogan's podcast, I believe, yesterday.
And at one point, they started talking about transgenderism and the so-called gender-affirming care racket.
And it was a great conversation.
It goes on for, you know, ten minutes.
It's worth—you can go online and find the clip.
But here's just a little bit of that exchange.
Watch.
It's interesting they choose words like gender-affirming care.
You know, that's interesting that they call it that, but really what they're talking about is hormonal therapy or sex reassignment surgery on children.
And in fairness, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Endocrine Society, or whatever the exact name of that is, all of the major medical associations have signed off on this, Joe.
They've signed off on it.
And I have never seen those organizations sign off on anything with less information as to whether or not it does long-term harm of anything in my life.
And when I ask about that, when I bring that up, then they immediately label you as transphobic.
And I thought that the deal was first, do no harm.
And all of the European countries, you know, Sweden, Norway, they've all stopped doing it, because they say, We cannot say in good conscience that this does no harm, because it does harm.
If you look at the long-term consequences, if someone changes their mind at 10, 11, 12, 13 years old, they can't decide which pajamas they want to wear at night.
And their reason for doing it is it stops this drive for suicide, that there's a suicide epidemic.
It doesn't fix that.
It doesn't fix all the comorbid issues that come along with feeling like they're in the wrong body.
But yet they're pushing this, and we're going to do some shows that are already taped that are revealing what the real results of this are, and I think people are going to be shocked that these medical organizations have signed off on this.
I think they've just given in to the pressure.
So as I said, the discussion goes on for several more minutes.
It doesn't surprise me to hear this from Dr. Phil, and you know, he's one of the sane ones when it comes to this issue and many other issues, in fact.
But I think a conversation like this also represents, or again indicates, the impending death of the child gender-affirming care scam.
You know, it's still happening, so it's still a major problem.
We have to fight back against it.
It's not that we can You know, wipe our hands clean of it and say we're done with it, but its days are numbered.
We are winning this fight.
We will ultimately prevail.
I think that that's, you know, I hesitate to use the term, but it feels rather inevitable.
And the reason is that the quote-unquote transitioning of children is one of those unique sorts of human evils that is so depraved and so deranged and so totally, utterly indefensible That it's just unsustainable.
It cannot continue.
It is an evil at that level, where it just cannot continue indefinitely.
Once people start speaking up against it and fighting back, it collapses.
And it has to.
And this is something that could only ever happen, the only reason that all this stuff happened in the first place, with the trans agenda and especially what it's been doing to kids, It could only ever happen because people didn't realize it was happening and or were too afraid to say anything about it.
So it requires ignorance and fear in order to continue.
And that's the point.
This kind of abuse survives and spreads only in an atmosphere of ignorance and fear.
Which is unlike some other bad things that can happen because people actually actively support them.
So take even something like abortion, for example.
That is a hideous, terrible evil, and it's the mass murder of children.
It's as bad as it gets.
And there's a lot of ignorance and fear driving that as well, obviously.
But people do support it.
Millions of people, sadly.
Do actively support abortion.
It's something that they actively support and will defend.
And they won't defend it well, because you can't defend it well.
Their arguments make no sense, but they will defend it.
And they do believe that this should be legal.
We support it.
This is what makes it so difficult to fully stop.
It's why we'll probably never fully stop abortion, you know, which Even if you make it illegal, it's still, it's the kind of evil that persists, which doesn't mean that you don't make it illegal, it's just like any other, you know, murder.
All the other, all the illegal forms of murder, people still murder people, even if it's illegal, it doesn't mean that you make it legal.
But, the gender transition of minors, that's different because it's something that almost nobody really supports.
Almost nobody thinks that it's truly a good idea.
Even the hardcore activists, the zealots, even they don't really believe what they're saying.
They don't believe their own arguments.
Because how could you?
The whole thing is so insane, so unjustifiable and inexcusable, and it's just, it's incoherent.
You can't believe it, even if you wanted to.
The whole position is when you get below the surface, you don't have to go that deep below the surface, you find this total sea of incoherence.
So there's no way to look at it and say, oh yeah, I believe that.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Yeah, a boy is really a girl.
No one believes it.
It's just not possible to reach a critical mass of people who really support it.
You can only reach a critical mass of ignorance and fear, which is what they achieved, the trans activists did.
Up until recently, up until the last few years.
And the problem for the trans activists is that the ignorance is almost entirely gone now.
Okay, so the ignorance is almost completely gone.
People know this is happening, they're aware of it, they're talking about it.
So it's not, you don't have that anymore.
You know, it's not like it was two years ago, three years ago.
It's not like it was when we were making What Is A Woman, we're out doing the man on the street interviews and talking to people about it.
And we're encountering people that, and this is only even just a few years ago, but we're encountering people that really, like, they don't even believe that this is a thing.
What are you talking about?
Transitioning?
They don't give those drugs to kids.
What are you talking about?
Well, now everybody knows.
So, ignorance is gone.
So, now that the ignorance is gone, people know, and you can't make them not know what they know.
And so, all you have left is fear.
Well, they know it.
Nobody believes in this.
No one believes it's right.
No one thinks it's actually right to give quote-unquote puberty blockers to a 10-year-old.
No one thinks that.
And they know that it's happening.
And so, what can you do now?
Well, the only thing you can do is fear.
Now it's like, okay, you know that it's happening, you don't agree with it because nobody does, but shut your mouth.
Because if you say anything about it, we're going to... But the fear is going away too.
Even the fear, people are not nearly as afraid.
To speak up against the trans cult as they were just a couple of years ago.
And when you've got conversations like this between guys like Joe Rogan and Dr. Phil, who's obviously hugely famous mainstream cultural icons, that are having an in-depth 10-minute conversation about it, it goes on for longer than 10 minutes, not pulling any punches at all, just being very matter-of-fact, like, yeah, of course this is crazy, you can't do this.
And when you get to that point, it's just, it's hard to make people afraid anymore.
You know, when you can turn on Spotify and listen to Joe Rogan and Dr. Phil talk about it, it's just not, it's not taboo anymore.
It used to be taboo to be opposed to the trans agenda, and it's not.
Now it's not.
And so trans activists, that's why they're so panicked now.
Because they don't have the fear, really, to the extent that they did.
They don't have the ignorance at all.
And, of course, no one's actually on their side intellectually, because it's completely insane.
And everything they say is insane and stupid and wrong and incoherent.
Everything.
So, that's...
That's what they're dealing with, and that's why they are losing and they will lose.
I'm not predicting any sort of utopian future at all.
There's a lot of things in our culture that unfortunately are not going to get better, certainly not in the short run.
But 10 years from now, let's say, or even 5 years, certainly 10 years from now, maybe with the exception of somewhere like California, you're not going to find People doing this to kids anymore.
And I would even predict that the trans identification in general is going to, you know, it's, if it hasn't reached its peak, I think that it's getting close to it and then it's going to start declining again.
And this, and ultimately this will be looked back on as a moment of mass psychosis.
You know, this is, this is really what we've been living through is a moment of mass psychosis.
And a mass psychosis, again, cannot continue indefinitely.
Eventually people just snap out of it and then it's done.
All right, Daily Wire has this report.
A global study that looked at medical issues among nearly 100 million people who received the COVID vaccine found a higher-than-expected increase in neurological and heart-related problems following the shot.
The Global Vaccine Data Network's COVID vaccine safety study, which was the largest safety research conducted on COVID vaccines to date, found a higher risk of myocarditis than was expected from the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer, Biotech, and Moderna.
The study also found an increased risk of a type of blood clot in the brain in people who received viral vector vaccines.
Researchers also found a significant increase in Guillain-Barre syndrome, which I'm sure I'm mispronouncing, within the first 42 days of initial AstraZeneca vaccine.
Okay.
Now, this is obviously just the tip of the iceberg.
You know, we're seeing now only the very beginning of what many people warned about and predicted.
But I think the bigger issue, the greater catastrophe here, even aside from the medical issues, which are significant, obviously, in their own right.
But the greater crisis, as we've talked about, is, and this loops in with everything we've talked about on the show today, is that this is another reason for people to lose their trust in the medical profession.
OK, well now we've got studies finally coming out that are being even reported in corporate media, where they're starting to admit, yeah, you know what, this is maybe a little bit worse than we thought.
And again, tip of the iceberg.
A few months from now, it's going to be, oh, this is significantly worse than we thought, and then on and on.
It is yet another reason for people to lose their trust in the medical profession.
And if you look at what's just look at what's happened over the past five years alone.
And this is something you could trace back certainly far, far before five years ago.
But you had everything that happened around COVID, all of the random arbitrary guidelines
invented by our so called public health authorities. And then the masking and
the social distancing and lockdowns and everything.
Then you had the vaccine, which was pushed on the public while any conversation about the side effects was censored and disallowed and everything.
And at the same time, while this was playing out, there was also the explosion of the gender, quote-unquote, gender-affirming care for children.
In particular, as we've been talking about.
So all this is happening over the course of the past five years or so.
And as a result, in just five years, the medical field has gone from something widely trusted and respected by the public.
And I haven't looked at any poll.
I don't know if they did any survey in, say, 2017 to see the general trust people have and faith they have in the medical establishment.
I'm sure they've done surveys like that, and you can go look and check me on this, but I'm willing to bet that the numbers were a lot higher, you know, five, six, seven years ago than they are now.
And so, up until about five years ago, trust was high.
People generally said, well, you know.
We trust doctors.
Doctors are, when it comes to medical issues, you know, this is what doctors are for.
And you trust your doctor.
And now that's not the case anymore.
Now it's something that people are deeply suspicious of.
And for good reason.
And this is a major, major problem.
It's a problem the medical field has created for itself, but it also becomes a problem for society.
I've used the analogy before of architects.
Say, bridge builders, you know, and you gotta think, well, what kind of country would we live in if bridges started crumbling all over the place?
Which they sort of are, actually, because our infrastructure is not the greatest.
But let's just say that major bridges started falling, you know, and with people on them, people were dying.
It was an epidemic.
And then as a result of that, well, nobody trusts bridges anymore.
Nobody wants to cross a bridge.
And it's like, say, the public approval rating for the bridge building industry reaches congressional levels.
Well, what then?
I mean, you can't blame people for not trusting the bridges.
They shouldn't, obviously.
But how do we function?
How do we function as a society when people are too afraid to cross a bridge?
How do you live in a large, highly populated, first world country where people don't trust this basic infrastructure?
It's chaos.
You can't.
And it's like that with medicine.
These people have lied to us.
They've pushed things on us that are not just unnecessary, but are actively harmful to our health.
They've made wild, wild claims that have no basis in reality at all.
And those claims have gotten the endorsement of As Dr. Phil said in the last headline, gotten the endorsement of every major medical organization, and this has all been happening recently, and we've seen it.
And these people, they've done horrible things to children in the name of medicine, in the name of science.
They've ruined the lives of so many children, the most vulnerable among us, and on and on.
So, now where do we go?
You know, now that we look at the medical field and we say, I can't trust these people.
I can't trust them.
Like, maybe you take any individual doctor, might be a good doctor, might be someone I can trust.
It's quite possible.
But just the simple fact of being a doctor doesn't really mean anything to me anymore.
Oh, you say you're a doctor.
Okay, well, are you the kind of doctor who would tell me that You know, it's okay to sterilize a child, a little boy, because he's really a girl?
Were you the kind of doctor who said that magically, if you stand six feet apart from someone, that you're not going to get a virus?
Or were you the doctor telling people to wear muzzles on their faces for a year, year and a half?
Were you one of the doctors that said, don't gather in large crowds because it's dangerous, unless you're in BLM, in which case the virus won't affect you?
Are you that kind of doctor?
Because if you are, I don't trust anything you say.
You have no integrity.
You either have no understanding of basic science, and you're a moron, or you pretend that you don't, and you're that dishonest and evil.
But either way, I can't trust you.
Or are you one of the doctors who was not on board with all that stuff?
Well, now I need to know that.
But a lot of times, I don't know that.
I can't know that.
And also, if you're one of the sane doctors, one of the good doctors, you might not even want to say that publicly because of the pressure that you're getting from all these medical organizations.
So it's just a big, it's a huge mess.
And that's how you end up with this crisis of trust that is, well, I call it a crisis for a reason.
I'm not, it's hard to know where it goes because I don't think we've ever quite Experience this as a society before the medical for as long as there's been modern medicine The medical field has always been widely respected and it's just been one of those things especially in the United States of America that we've all kind of you know, we just sort of You know, hopefully don't take it as gospel.
These people aren't gods, but you think okay.
Well, this is basically trustworthy people And that's how it's always been until now.
So what a society look like I When that basic trust is not there anymore.
I guess we're going to find out.
Alright, moving to this.
We have some controversy.
Some racism, allegedly.
And this is the worst kind of racism imaginable.
It's the racism, really racism in its most bigoted, most vicious form.
Because it is the racism of criticizing Beyonce, the singer.
And, as opposed to any other Beyonce I might be talking about.
And we all know that if you criticize Beyonce, then you're racist.
Automatically.
We've learned that.
I've learned that.
I've been told that.
I've criticized her plenty of times.
Because she's not a very good singer and all of her songs are terrible.
And anytime I say that, I'm told, well, you're racist for that.
You have to like Beyonce.
Just one of those requirements to be not racist.
Well, someone has violated that rule and now they've got the internet mob coming after them.
This is from Yahoo.
Actor John Schneider has garnered the ire of the Bayhive.
After comparing Beyonce to a dog, marking her territory for her recent venture into country music, several fans slammed him as racist and hateful, and commented that the singer does not need his permission to create country music.
Social media users said, uh, Beyonce can do whatever the F she wants to do, she doesn't need your permission.
Did John Schneider just compare Beyonce to a dog?
So Beyonce singing country music makes her a dog?
What the F?
And then, okay, that's all, they're all basically all the same.
Calling him a racist, right-wing extremist.
Anyway, here's John Schneider, the, I guess, I don't know who he is, I guess he's an actor.
And here he is making this comment about Beyonce's foray into country music.
The lefties in the entertainment industry just won't leave any area alone, right?
They just have to seize control over every aspect, don't they?
They've got to make their mark just like a dog in a dog walk park.
You know, every dog has to mark every tree, right?
So that's what's going on here.
Shania and the other folks you talked about, what they did is they were in country music and they went out.
And that's one thing.
But people coming into country music have a... because I know a little something about country music.
Okay, so there's the supposedly racist remark, which of course is not racist at all.
Don't be ridiculous.
You're allowed to not like Beyonce.
Now, I think the criticism is kind of stupid on the face.
Complaining about the lefties invading our space just because Beyonce made a country song is...
Sort of dumb.
Mainly because there are already a ton of leftists making country music.
Country music is not some kind of conservative bastion.
It's not.
Now, there are conservative country stars, but it's... Will we even call them the majority at this point?
And, you know, so a lot of country music is made by liberals, and a lot of it is already quite terrible.
Quite a lot of it.
If you go, if you still are one of the five people who listens to the radios, let's say, and you turn on a country station anywhere in the country, you know, like 90% of what comes on is going to be really bad.
So it's not like she's desecrating some sacred thing.
It's country music.
Some of it is good.
Plenty of it is bad.
But, you know, it's not racist to criticize him.
As for the song itself, I had not heard about this Beyoncé-Country crossover thing.
I didn't know that was happening.
Apparently it was announced during the Super Bowl.
I watched the Super Bowl and I didn't even, I guess I, Beyoncé came on the screen and I, my eyes glazed over and I didn't pay attention.
So I don't have high hopes for it, I must admit.
But if you also hadn't heard about this and you're wondering what the song sounds like, We'll play a little clip of it.
Here is Beyonce's country song which is called, what's it called?
Texas Hold'em.
Go ahead.
♪ ♪
This ain't Texas, Ain't no hold 'em,
So lay your cards down, down, down, down So park your Lexus,
And throw your keys up Stick around, round, round, round, round
And I'll be damned if I can't slow dance with you Come pour some sugar on me honey too
It's a real live boogie and a real live hold down Don't be a b****, come take it to the floor now
Woo!
There's a tornado In my city
♪ Um... I...
I don't hate it.
I thought I was going to make fun of it.
I don't hate it.
Why don't I hate it?
I should hate it.
I should hate it.
But I don't.
It's catchy.
Can we just admit that?
Can we admit that it's catchy?
Can we be adults about it?
Okay, don't blame me for saying it's catchy.
So, what do you want me to say to you?
It's a catchy song.
And it's got a banjo.
And I don't know if there's a harmonica, but if she throws a harmonica into the song later, then... I've said before, there's a certain formula to music, and I'm not a musician, but... And one of those is if you put a banjo and a harmonica in a song, it's automatically at least okay.
Like, it's automatically listenable with those two instruments.
She's got one of them, I don't know about the second one.
And so, you know, and it's there's real instruments being played.
I mean, she's not playing them, obviously.
We can assume she didn't write the song.
She's not playing the instruments, but it is real music.
It's actual music.
We can say that.
So, you know, I kind of like it.
I just I do deal with it.
I said I like a Beyonce song.
It's it's it's the first.
Decent song she's ever made.
I don't know who I am anymore.
I don't know what's happening to me.
I'm defending Taylor Swift.
I'm a member of the Bayhive now.
I'm in the Bayhive.
I'm a Swiftie.
I'm a Bayhive member.
You know, this is the twist no one's all coming.
Is that you've got the Swifties and the Bayhive.
It's a civil war, it's been raging for years.
And everyone's wondered, who is the chosen one who is going to bring these two nations together?
And nobody thought that it would be me.
But I am the one who is going to bring the Bayhive and the Swifties together.
It's a crazy world.
It's a crazy world we live in.
All right, let's get to it.
Was Walsh wrong?
Nobody likes to talk about life insurance, but it's incredibly important and you need to include it in your financial planning this year.
Start shopping now with Policy Genius.
Find the right policy to protect your family today and give yourself the peace of mind that comes with knowing that if something were to happen to you, your family would cover all of their expenses.
Well, getting back on their feet.
PolicyGenius's technology makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks.
You already have a life insurance policy through work, but that might not offer enough protection for your family's needs, and it may not follow you if you leave your job.
That's why you need a backup.
With PolicyGenius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $292 per year for a million dollars of coverage.
Some options offer same-day approval and avoid unnecessary medical exams.
PolicyGenius has licensed agents who can help you find the best fit for your needs.
When they make it this easy, there's no excuse not to do it.
PolicyGenius works for you, not the insurance companies.
That means they don't have an incentive to recommend one insurer over another.
They just give you trusted guidance that you rely on.
Save time and money and give your family a financial safety net with PolicyGenius.
Head to policygenius.com slash Walsh or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com slash Walsh.
We have some comments.
Yesterday we talked about the drama of the divorced dad and the daughter who are having a feud via viral videos on Twitter and TikTok.
And some people disagreed with my general take on that.
Not surprisingly.
First comment says, it's possible, even extremely likely, that the mother convinced her that he was a horrible person.
Divorced mothers seem to do this quite often.
They vent to their children like they're miniature therapists, and it destroys the child's view of the father.
It's reckless, childish, and indicative of a bitter heart.
Now, the comment agrees.
I think it's quite common for the estranged woman to poison the minds of the children of divorce and their care.
It's sad because a lot of these dads whose reputations and memories have been character assassinated by the scorned Okay.
First of all, again, the money is irrelevant.
than willingly have a loving and caring relationship with their children but are prohibited from
doing so by the mother.
Bonnie Doon says, I'm with dad on this one.
Silver Spooner being fed lies by her angry divorced mother, throwing her father onto
the bus all while getting $5 million in the divorce.
Okay.
First of all, again, the money is irrelevant.
It's just not, it's not, you're required to, you know, when the judge says you have to
pay a certain amount of money in divorce, it, whether it's justified or unjustified,
However, it's not a substitute for being a father.
And it's not like, you don't get credit for that.
You had to do it.
So, I think there are plenty of times when there's payments that are required, especially with alimony, where it's incredibly unjust and all of that.
But, you know, the idea that it's irrelevant to this.
Because the question is whether the child, not a child now, but whether the daughter You know, whether her perspective on this is justified, you know, the resentment she feels to the dad, whether that's justified, and the fact that there was $5 million is completely irrelevant to that.
It doesn't mean anything.
I know that if I were to decide to leave my family and my kids, I would not be able to say to my kids, you know, it's okay, here's 5 million bucks.
You'll be fine.
To the kid, that's not going to mean anything.
You understand that?
I could give my kids a billion dollars.
I can say, I'm leaving, here's a billion dollars.
And the billion dollars may as well be a penny.
It doesn't mean anything to them.
Because they don't want the money, they want me and my presence.
They want a dad, is what they want.
The money does not mean anything.
So it's just not relevant to this.
And yes, it's true that mothers can poison kids against their fathers.
It's true that families can break up, men can end up divorced because the mother causes it, the mother forces it.
All that is true.
And yeah, when I talked about this yesterday, I acknowledged that.
The problem is that there are some people, including in these comments here, who apparently refuse to acknowledge that the man can ever be to blame.
See, that's what I run into anytime I try to talk about divorce, marriage.
If I discuss the man's role at all, I get these angry comments.
So, is that your, it's like, we can't talk about it at all?
Is it never the man's fault?
Is that where we are now?
Now, what I try to do is I talk about both when I talk about relationships.
I talk about the woman's role, the man's role.
There are times when I give the men a hard time for certain aspects.
There are times when I give the woman a hard time.
In fact, in the Daily Cancellation, we're about to talk about next, we're going to be talking about relationships again.
And in that case, I'm going to be focused on a woman, in this case, who's the wrong one.
So, I kind of do both, you know?
And I think anyone who watches the show knows that.
But there are, what we have though are, you know, you have feminists on one side, and then you've got whatever, you know, whatever label you want to put, red pill, whatever, on the other side, who have just, they've taken their battle stations, and in their world, their team is just never wrong ever in these kinds of situations, which is a ridiculous, cartoonish view of life that has no bearing on reality, okay?
We cannot pretend that every divorced dad is a deadbeat narcissist.
Correct.
We cannot pretend that.
That's a wrong thing to claim.
Fortunately, I'm not claiming that, and I've never claimed anything even approaching that.
But on the other hand, we also can't claim that deadbeat, narcissistic, lazy, good-for-nothing dads don't exist.
Like, are we pretending that that category of man doesn't even exist in the world?
Of course it does!
And I think for all the reasons we talked about yesterday, there's a lot of very good evidence that in the case we talked about yesterday, the man in that case falls into that category.
He's a deadbeat narcissistic dad who just, even now at the age of 60 or whatever, doesn't understand simple things like you cannot replace fatherhood with money and that sort of thing.
He apparently knows almost nothing about his own kids who are now grown, and the mom can't keep you from them now.
So, we should be able to talk about that too.
And we need to stop talking about men like they're just helpless damsels in distress, and nothing is their fault, and nothing that happens in their families is their fault.
Okay?
We can't do that either.
So blaming men for everything is wrong.
Blaming them for nothing is also wrong.
These are, I would say, equally absurd errors to make.
But if you want to err on one side or the other, I always prefer to err on the side of empowering people, of giving them agency.
You know, which means I would rather err on the side of giving you more blame than you deserve than less of the blame than you deserve.
If you gotta err on one side or the other.
In my own life, I would rather people err on blaming me for things that are not my fault than for making me into some sort of pitiful, pathetic, helpless weakling who's just drifting on the breeze like a falling leaf, okay?
Of those two, I would rather you just blame me for everything in life.
I'd rather you give me too much agency, ascribe too much power, than none at all, which is what I get in some of these comments.
And I find it just, it's just, like, grow up.
Let's grow up.
Let's be adults about this.
Let's try to develop even, like, the slightest insights into the nature of human relationships and human dynamics.
which is sorely lacking.
Finally, it says Matt's wrong about brushing off incompatible.
If a young man was apolitical and young and had married AOC and then started leaning right as time went by,
while she kept going further left, if that's even possible.
You can't brush off incompatible as a non-issue, especially if it was time to start planning a family.
What if Matt's wife suddenly went all aboard the trans train and wanted the kids on board as well?
He wouldn't brush that off as incompatible and insist that the marriage go on.
Okay, two quick things.
First, I know you're using this as a hypothetical example, but there's actually an important point here.
It is impossible that my wife would jump aboard the trans train.
It's, I mean, I would sooner worry about her turning into a werewolf than turning into a trans activist, okay?
Let me just, I'll put it that way.
So it's, if it's not impossible, it's only possible in the same sense that it's technically possible that someone could magically turn into a werewolf or a zombie or something.
I mean, it's like, you're in monster movie realm.
And it's, I mean, another way of putting it is, It's just as likely that I would turn in to a trans activist than my wife would.
And there's zero chance of that.
As you know, I would rather be, I would literally rather be dead.
So it's just not ever going to happen.
And the point is that if you exercise just the smallest bit of discernment, it's not that difficult to find and marry somebody with values similar to your own.
Now, yes, people do change.
You know, things happen.
People change.
In most cases, in the vast majority of cases, people don't change that much.
The problem with people normally goes the other way.
For most people, you take them and you look at them when they're 75 years old.
They're not that different from when they were 45 or 35.
In fact, they should be more different than they are.
So the problem for most people is that they haven't changed enough.
It's not that people change too much in most cases, it's that they don't change hardly at all.
And now again, exceptions, exceptions, I get that.
But generally speaking, you're not going to have these just radical transformations that occur.
So you can, you know, if it's important to you, and it should be, that you don't marry a trans activist Because you have nothing in common with somebody like that, your values don't align, you're worried about what they would do to your kids, you know, the ways that your kids would be affected by that.
Well, it's really not difficult to avoid marrying somebody like that in the first place.
Now, what's more, you know, your second scenario is more, I think, more in line with reality, or rather your first scenario, I suppose.
If I remember correctly, it's like you take someone who's basically a couple that's basically apolitical, kind of moderate, you know, just not really politically disconnected, doesn't really care that much, then they get married, and then they, you know, one of them starts drifting a little bit to the right, the other starts drifting a little bit to the left.
Yeah, that sort of thing can happen, but that's not a major transformational change.
It's just kind of drifting here, drifting there.
You know, the gradual sort of much more subtle changes that happen and are much more real, true to life.
And if that happens, does that mean that you get divorced?
No.
Does that make you incompatible?
Like you can't even be in the same house?
You can't possibly figure out a way to be married?
Of course it doesn't mean that.
What it probably means in that case, the best solution, is to just not make politics a part of your marriage.
Which in this scenario, politics were never really a part of your life to begin with, so don't make it a part of your marriage.
It doesn't have to be.
There's no reason why it has to be.
Most of the time it isn't naturally anyway.
Like I don't sit around talking politics with my wife most of the time, a little bit we do, but it's not a major focal point.
I can imagine having a marriage where it's a major focal point.
Are you struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns this year?
The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents.
In these challenging times, your best defense is to use Tax Network USA.
Along with hiring thousands of new agents and field officers, the IRS has kicked off 2024 by sending over 5 million pay-up letters to those who have unfiled tax returns or balance owed.
These guys are not your friends. Don't waive your rights and speak with these agents on your own.
Tax Network USA, a trusted tax relief firm, has saved over a billion dollars in back taxes for their clients
and they can help you secure the best deal possible.
Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help. Whether it's business or personal taxes,
whether you have the means to pay or you're a fixed income.
Whatever the case, Tax Network can help finally resolve your tax burdens once and for all.
Seize control of your financial future now and don't let tax issues overpower you.
Contact Tax Network USA for immediate relief and expert guidance.
Call 1-800-245-6000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh.
Turn to Tax Network USA and find your path to financial peace of mind.
That's tnusa.com slash Walsh.
President's Day is a time to honor the great leaders of our nation who shaped our history and our values, but you don't have to be a president to look like one.
Jeremy's razors are made with the finest material and craftsmanship, and they come in a variety of packages to suit your needs.
Check out the Founder's Kit, available in Precision 5, featuring five blades and a Precision flip-back trimmer for superior accessibility around the nose, ears, and sideburns.
Or the Smooth 6, with six blades for smooth, long-lasting shave.
Each includes a travel case, a matte tungsten handle, green tea and menthol shave cream, and post-shave balm.
Wait, I didn't tell you the best part yet.
Jeremy's has 20% off site-wide during our President's Day sale.
Don't miss this chance to save big and get the best shave of your life.
Get 20% off now at jeremysrazors.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
So today we have another wonderful opportunity to correct some very bad
relationship advice from the Internet.
This time it comes from a viral video with over 12 million views on Twitter and who knows how many on other platforms, which features a young woman explaining the math behind what she has dubbed breakupology.
Now, many comments, mostly from women, have hailed this as a brilliant analysis of relationship dynamics.
They say that there is a lot of wisdom and insight into, you know, in this video, a lot we can glean from it.
And they are, of course, wrong about that, and I'll explain why.
But first, here's the video.
If you're a boy who has ever been dumped by your girlfriend for seemingly no apparent reason, and you're looking for answers, this is what happened.
Okay, this is you guys.
You guys are in a happy relationship, and now all of a sudden you have one simple, fixable problem.
For this example, we're gonna use no good morning texts.
When your girlfriend who loves you, she's really happy with you, she comes to you and she tells you, she's like, hey, do you think we could start doing good morning texts?
Like, it'd mean a lot to me if you texted me good morning.
So you, her loving boyfriend, agree to give her good morning texts.
But something happened, and for whatever reason, you stopped giving her good morning texts, so now we have a bigger problem.
She now thinks that you don't care enough about her to send her good morning texts, even though she asked.
But she's gonna be like, you know what, this is still kind of a small problem, I'm just gonna remind him.
She reminds you, you're like, oh my gosh, that's right, I did agree to that, okay, I will text you good morning.
Unfortunately though, you didn't follow through again.
Now we have confirmed that you do not care enough to text her good morning, even though this is a simple, fixable problem.
This is now a big problem.
So now, your girlfriend, who has never picked fights before in her life, starts picking a bunch of little fights about all these different things because she believes that you do not care enough.
Through all of these picking fights with you, though, she still loves you and likes you enough to want to be with you, even though you guys have all these little problems now.
Until one day these become unattractive to her.
She's gonna realize that all of these little things that you do that remind her that you don't care about her enough are unattractive.
And so now the problem is not these things.
It's not even that you don't care enough.
It's not even that she never got good morning texts.
It's that she literally does not like you anymore.
Does not like you.
Now, unfortunately, she has to break up with you.
Okay, so this is all wrong.
Now, to be clear, this TikTok girl isn't wrong when she says that, you know, women sometimes operate this way in a relationship.
That is true.
But she's wrong in the deeper implications, as we'll get into.
The first problem becomes apparent about three seconds into the video.
I don't know anything about this girl, but I'm going to assume, I think quite safely, that she has not been married for 10 plus years.
Okay, I don't know anything, but I think we can assume that.
I'm guessing she isn't married at all.
And as you know, if you listen to this show, one of my basic fundamental rules when it comes to this sort of thing is that you simply cannot take any relationship advice at all, ever, From anyone who has never had sustained meaningful success in a relationship.
And sustained meaningful success must mean, just to start with, that they have been married to one person and stayed married for at least several years.
Taking relationship advice from someone who has only dated a succession of random people and never moved to the next stage with any of them?
It's like taking advice on wilderness survival from someone who has never even camped out in their backyard, much less survived in the woods for a week, okay?
It's possible, technically, that somebody might acquire survival knowledge just by reading books or whatever, but if I was dispensing wilderness survival tips and you asked me about my own experience in the area and I responded, That, oh, well, you know, one time I slept on an air mattress in the basement of my in-law's house.
You're going to promptly ignore everything else I say on the subject.
Of course you will!
In fact, it would be suicidal to take my advice with you into the wilderness.
And the same goes for relationships.
The only people who should ever be giving advice about romantic relationships are those who are married, have been married for several years, and preferably have kids.
Because that means That those of us in that camp have successfully moved a relationship from first introduction to dating, to engagement, to marriage, to family life, and we've been tested along the way, and we've endured, and we've gained experience and insight that might be useful.
It doesn't mean we're right.
We could still be wrong, obviously.
And of course, someone who's been married for eight years might be divorced by next week.
Like, we all understand that.
It's not that all married people have great relationship wisdom.
It's just that only married people have great relationship wisdom.
So, if you're going to hear great relationship advice from anyone, they're going to be married.
Which doesn't mean that all of them have that advice, but that's the only category where you're going to get the good advice from.
Now, some 22-year-old whose longest relationship was six and a half months, Just has nothing interesting or useful to offer here.
It's like you don't know, you don't know anything.
You haven't done anything.
You've never demonstrated any ability to have any form of success in this world.
So why would you think that you're in a position to give anyone advice about it?
Now, since we have that established, we'll move to the video.
Okay, she describes a scenario where A woman decides that she wants something from her boyfriend, good morning texts in this case, and she doesn't get it consistently enough, and so she starts inventing other problems and complaining about those until she decides one day that her boyfriend's failure to comply has made him unattractive, and she breaks up with him, only to, she doesn't say this part, but invariably, you know, this girl moves on to the next guy and repeats the process again, and again and again, etc.
and so forth, unto infinity.
Again, you know, she's correct that some women, certainly not all, do function this way, but What she doesn't mention, and doesn't seem to realize, presumably because she is this kind of woman herself, is that what she has described here is incredibly toxic, narcissistic, shallow behavior, and the girlfriend in this scenario is just wrong.
So if you're a woman who operates this way, and you look at that video and say, yeah, that resonates, you're wrong.
You need to not be this way.
So if you look at that chart and that's you, it shouldn't be you.
Stop doing that.
Stop being like that.
Your being wrong is what you're being.
The only mistake the boyfriend made was in not pulling the plug and breaking up with her much earlier.
So let's go through the red flags that this hypothetical woman is waving around here.
Red flag number one.
She gave her boyfriend an assignment.
Okay?
Now, asking him to do good morning texts, as silly as that might be, is not wrong in and of itself.
She's allowed to want things in their relationship, even silly things.
It's true that she wants to feel loved and valued, and she should feel that way, just as he should.
But in this scenario, she asks for good morning texts, she gets them, and it's fine.
Then life intervenes, as it does.
The guy has a few mornings where he forgets to send a text, and she gets mad.
And he starts doing the text again, and then after a while, he misses a few days, and she gets mad again.
What we see here is that this is not about the text, and it's not about feeling loved or valued, because at this point, you're just berating him and harassing him and nagging him for this little thing that you want.
If he does it, at this point, he's only doing it to shut you up.
It doesn't show that you're loved.
He's just complying.
So, when you're demanding this rather meaningless ritual and have no tolerance for a lack of compliance, what you're really looking for is not love, but obedience.
Subordination is what you're looking for.
Now, it's easy to see this if you think that I'm being a little harsh about it.
It's easy to see this if you just reverse the roles.
That's all you gotta do.
If this was a man drawing up a complicated graph explaining why he gets angry when he doesn't receive a good morning text on schedule every morning from his girlfriend, everybody, and especially every woman celebrating this video without exception, would agree that that man is toxic, manipulative, overbearing, and insecure, and probably abusive.
Now, it's true, of course, that men and women are different, and so this reverse the roles thing doesn't work in every case, but manipulativeness and narcissism are bad no matter which sex is engaging in it.
Red flag number two.
The woman starts picking other petty fights just as a way of venting her frustration over this other thing, which is also petty.
This is called being a selfish, immature, incredibly unpleasant person.
It's just not okay.
So again, if you're a woman and you say, oh yeah, I do that when I'm upset, you shouldn't do that.
You're wrong for doing that.
You are just wrong.
It's inexcusable to do that.
Starting fights on purpose, intentionally, because you're upset about something else, is a very bad thing to do.
It's very immature, it's childish, and you should not do that.
And, you know, starting the fights constantly.
Not just once, but constantly.
And if you're doing that, the problem is you.
Every time.
Period.
If you are starting a fight on purpose, you are automatically wrong about the substance of the fight.
You're the bad guy in the situation.
Especially in this case, as one of the fights on the graph is, and I quote, didn't remember her dog's birthday.
I hope I don't need to tell you this, man, but if you're dating a woman who expects you to remember the birthday of any non-human creature, you need to break up with her immediately.
Don't even wait until this podcast is over.
I want you to pause it right now, call her, and just say, I break up, and then hang up, and then move on with your life, and finish the podcast.
Okay?
Red flag number three.
This woman decides that she doesn't like her boyfriend anymore because of his alleged failures in a bunch of areas that mean almost nothing objectively.
This woman who loved her boyfriend can apparently have that love extinguished by a lack of texting and the fact that he forgot to put her dog's birthday into his Google Calendar.
Well, what exactly does the word love mean, if this is the sort of thing that can destroy it?
In what sense did she ever love her boyfriend?
It's not a rhetorical question, by the way.
I'd love to hear this girl explain how this woman, in this scenario, loved her boyfriend.
What do you mean he loved her?
She loved her.
Him.
In what way?
What does that mean?
Because I would say that if your love hinges on text messages, then your love doesn't exist.
And never did.
Which brings us to red flag number four.
Finally, you notice the thing that is never mentioned.
Anywhere in this whole breakupology equation.
We never hear what the woman is actively doing to maintain the relationship with the man.
Demanding that the guy do things for you doesn't count as you making an effort in the relationship.
So if you're listing all the things that you're doing to make an effort and they're all just, I asked you to do this, I asked you to do that, I asked you... You're not doing anything!
You're asking him to do everything while you do nothing.
What are you doing?
What requests of his are you fulfilling?
How would you react if he made a request like that?
Would you be insulted by it?
Just in principle?
Oh, you want me to do this thing that I find irrelevant and you want me to do it every day?
I'm not doing that.
Is that how you would react?
How are you making him feel loved and valued?
Have you even thought about that?
Do you feel any responsibility to be as attentive to him as you expect him to be to you?
This is a good general rule.
If you are reviewing all the problems in your relationship, if you're listing them out on paper, let's say, and every single problem, if you're a woman and you're doing this, and every single problem starts with he.
He did this.
He didn't do that.
That's a pretty solid indication that the problem is not him.
It's you.
You haven't even considered your own role.
You haven't even attempted to reflect on your own failures at all.
And that's why you're really breaking up.
It's not the texts.
It's not the dog's birthday.
It's you.
That's it.
And that is why this breakupology formula is today cancelled.
