Ep. 1430 - A Court Finally Answered The ‘What Is A Woman’ Question — And They Got It Wrong
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, after a trans-identified male sued for access to a women's only app, a court in Australia had to issue a formal ruling officially defining the word "woman." It's no surprise that the court managed to get the answer wrong. Also, RFK Jr. shakes up the race in a major way by endorsing Trump. Trump comes out for "reproductive rights." I'll play another clip from my upcoming movie, "Am I Racist?" This one is very painful, I'm warning you. And the host of the most popular podcast in the world for women must be canceled today.
Ep.1430
- - -
DailyWire+:
From the white guys who brought you “What is a Woman?” comes Matt Walsh’s next question: “Am I Racist?” | Get tickets NOW: https://www.amiracist.com
Get 35% off an Annual Membership NOW with code FIGHT: https://dailywire.com/subscribe
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1 (800) 958-1000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
ZipRecruiter - Rated #1 Hiring Site. Try ZipRecruiter for FREE! http://www.ZipRecruiter.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, after a trans-identified male sued for access to a women's-only app, a court in Australia had to issue a formal ruling officially defining the word woman.
It's no surprise that the court managed to somehow get the answer wrong, however.
Also, RFK Jr.
shakes up the race in a major way by endorsing Trump.
Trump comes out for reproductive rights, quote-unquote.
I'll play another clip from my upcoming movie, Am I Racist?
This one is very painful, I'm warning you.
And the host of the most popular podcast in the world for women, Must be cancelled today, unfortunately.
all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Are you still struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns?
The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters.
Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars.
In these challenging times, your best offense is with Tax Network USA.
With over 14 years of experience, the experts at Tax Network USA have saved clients millions in back taxes.
Regardless of the size of your tax issue, their expertise is your advantage.
Tax Network USA offers three key services, protection, compliance, and settlement.
Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order, ensuring that aggressive collection activities such as garnishments, levies, or property seizures are halted.
If you haven't filed in a while, need amended returns, or are missing records, Tax Network USA's expert tax preparers will update all of your filings to eliminate the risk of IRS enforcement, and then they'll create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your tax debt.
The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and now the tax season is over.
Collection season has begun.
Tax Network USA can even help with state tax issues.
For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1000 or visit the website at tnusa.com slash Walsh.
That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh.
Don't let the IRS take advantage of you.
Get the help you need with Tax Network USA.
More than two years after the release of my film, What is a Woman?, it's still impossible to get a straight answer to that question from gender activists, liberal professors, political commentators, really anyone on the left.
They might call you weird for asking the question or
call you a transphobe or call the police.
But whatever they do, they won't respond in any
meaningful way to a question that throughout all of human history up
until very recently has been extremely easy for
every living person to answer.
And they won't tell you the truth, which is that a woman is an adult
human female.
Instead, they'll tell you that the definition of a woman is
whatever you want it to be, whatever they want it to be.
And one of the many reasons this approach isn't sustainable is that
it's extremely important, obviously, from a practical
perspective, to have a functional definition of the word woman.
This isn't some abstract philosophical exercise.
We need a definition of the word woman in order to interpret our
laws, including the various pieces of civil rights legislation that
have been passed over the years.
But Despite that fact, there haven't been a lot of court cases addressing this issue head-on.
Instead, major legal battles concerning gender ideology have primarily focused on the area of so-called trans medicine.
The legal issues in those cases, including the landmark Sixth Circuit case upholding Tennessee's ban on child castration, are about the degree of supposed consensus in the medical field on the issue of whether children should be sterilized.
And they're about the rights of parents to decide what physicians do to their children, but they're not really about this fundamental underlying issue, which is the most basic question of all, which is what it means for someone to be a woman or a man.
But that is changing very quickly.
Courts overseas are being forced to issue rulings on the definition of womanhood.
And unsurprisingly, they are, in many cases, having difficulty conjuring up the right answer.
They're coming up with political rulings instead.
The most recent case arrives to us from the perpetually confused country known as Australia, where the federal court has just made a landmark decision in a lawsuit by a man who claims to be a woman and who now uses the name Roxanne Tickle.
So here's the background.
In February of 2021, Roxanne Tickle downloaded an app called Giggle for Girls, which was advertised as a way for women to speak to other women exclusively.
It was specifically promoted as an online refuge by Giggle's CEO, who said that she created the app as a kind of a safe environment for women after she suffered some form of sexual abuse in the past.
So, yes, this case is quite literally tickle v. Giggle.
May sound like an episode of Teletubbies, but it is actually a real court case in Australia.
Now, initially an AI program at Giggle looked at Roxanne Tickle's profile picture and concluded that he was probably a woman.
So Tickle was allowed into Giggle.
But a few... I mean, how can you talk about this and take it seriously?
When you have to say sentences like, Tickle was allowed into Giggle, but that's what's going on.
I mean, that's, what can we do?
A few months later, somebody at Giggle took a closer look and concluded that Roxanne Tickle was in fact a man, and that this fact was blindingly obvious to anybody who looked at his picture.
So, Roxanne Tickle was banned from Giggle, which led him to sue the company for sex discrimination, and ultimately Tickle won.
Australia's federal court decided that Tickle, which this is the person now, not the app, decided that Tickle is in fact a woman, so the app, Giggle, has to pay tens of thousands of dollars in fake damages.
And Giggle, in case you're looking to download it, is apparently offline at the moment, although it's supposed to relaunch again sometime soon.
At its peak, it had around 20,000 users, so it was never a particularly large platform.
Now it's impossible to go any further in discussing this case without showing some footage of what Roxanne Tickle actually looks and sounds like.
So here's a news report that gives you some idea.
Here it is.
The Federal Court has ruled the exclusion of a transgender woman from a female-only app constituted unlawful discrimination.
In 2021, Roxanne Tickle joined the social network Giggle for Girls, designed as an online refuge for women.
Her identity was initially verified by the app, but was later restricted by a manual override.
Giggle's CEO, Sal Grover, denied discriminatory conduct.
However, Justice Robert Bromwich today found indirect gender identity discrimination had occurred.
I'm pleased by the outcome of my case and I hope it is healing for trans and gender diverse people.
The ruling shows that all women are protected from discrimination.
So that's Roxanne Tickle for you.
It looks very much like the sort of person who would choose the name Roxanne Tickle.
And this is one of those situations where, you know, you obviously don't need a 50,000 word federal court decision to figure out if Roxanne Tickle is a man or a woman.
So how exactly did the Australian federal court arrive at their decision?
By what definition of woman does Roxanne Tickle qualify, according to them?
Now, if you pull up the decision, not surprisingly, you're not going to find an answer to that question.
Instead, you'll find what appears to be the first major court decision that officially defines woman to mean whatever the court says it means.
Quoting from the court's ruling, sex is not confined to being a biological concept, referring to whether a person at birth had male or female physical traits, nor confined to being a binary concept, limited to the male or female sex, but rather takes a broader ordinary meaning informed by its use, including in state and territory legislation.
Now I should pause here and let you know what you probably already assumed, which is that the court just claimed that there are more sexes besides male and female, but never at any point does the court name what those other sexes are.
This is very common.
In fact, out of all the people who tell us that there are more than two sexes, precisely none of them have ever told us what the other sexes are.
I don't even need you to list all of them.
Name like one other.
If it's not just binary, there's at least a third, so name me the third.
Their answer is, well, just trust me bro, there are other sexes.
There are.
Now stop asking questions.
The court continues, quote, the determination of the sex of a person may take into account a range of factors, including biological and physical characteristics, legal recognition, and how they present themselves and are recognized socially.
So in other words, according to the federal court in Australia, legislation and legal recognition determines your sex now, along with other factors.
Including what other people think you are and how you present yourself.
So, if you're recognized socially as a woman, then you're probably a woman, is what they're saying.
Of course, the problem is that if the definition of woman is someone who is socially recognized as a woman, we still have no idea what a woman is.
Socially recognized as what, exactly?
What is the thing that they're being recognized as?
And why does social recognition matter?
I thought that it didn't matter.
I thought the whole point was that the society can't define you and all that kind of stuff.
Now, as far as I can tell, the court never polled all of Australia for its opinion on whether Roxanne Tickle qualifies as a woman.
They apparently didn't ask anyone, in fact.
So really, the court never determined that Tickle was recognized socially as a woman.
That factor didn't come into play.
In truth, what the court is saying is that Roxanne Tickle is a woman because the court says so.
They're not conducting any social analysis of how people perceive this person.
Not that an analysis like that would be relevant anyway, but they're not doing it.
Specifically, the court said that back in 1984, Australia's parliament passed a law called the Sex Discrimination Act, which protected women from discrimination.
But the law never explicitly defined the word woman, because everybody knew what it meant at the time.
There was no reason to do it.
Everyone knows what the word is.
So now, a few decades later, the court unilaterally says that you're a woman if the court says you're one, after weighing a few factors that the court invented.
They just kind of read that into the law.
The court decides what a woman is, and although the court still cannot say what a woman is, they decide what a woman is.
That's the ruling.
In effect, Australians are being commanded by their court system to ignore their common sense, which is informed by their knowledge of basic human biology.
They're being asked to ignore their own laws as well, and instead they're commanded to obey the ad hoc wisdom of the federal court system.
A woman is anyone the court says is a woman.
That's all.
End of story.
This decision is going to be appealed to Australia's highest court, but at the moment, that's the precedent that has just been set.
Now, we don't have any kind of landmark cases like this in the United States, at least not yet, but courts in this country are still proceeding on the same principle.
This is a case that the Daily Mail first reported on last month, although it's just starting to get attention now.
A family in Maryland lost custody of their 16-year-old autistic son because they refused to pretend that he was really a girl.
Apparently, the teenager went through a difficult breakup with his girlfriend and attempted suicide in November of 2021.
He told his friends at the time that he was LGBT.
But still used masculine pronouns as far as anyone knew.
But instead of treating this teenager as an individual suffering from grief over a breakup and probably other emotional and mental health problems as well, instead of that, Children's National Hospital in Washington, D.C.
reportedly determined that the boy suffered from gender dysphoria and was really a girl.
Now it's not clear how they came to that conclusion or how much the hospital influenced that diagnosis.
And then according to the Daily Mail, the hospital, quote, used its emergency policies to keep the boy in its unit and reported the parents to Child Protective Services.
And this went on for more than a month, at which point the child was then forced into foster care with a single mother who reportedly has a previous criminal record for assault.
And then in July of 2022, the boy attempted suicide again And this time the hospital took him back as a quote-unquote girl.
Now the boy's parents are suing Children's National Hospital and the legal battle is apparently still underway.
It's been going on for two years now.
The child is now 19.
And there's conflicting information about whether this lawsuit is still active.
The hospital told the Daily Mail that it's been withdrawn by the parents.
The parents deny that.
The court filings in this case are sealed because it involves a minor.
But reportedly, the Fourth Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals is now handling it.
So that's where that stands.
But as it stands now, The lawsuit focuses extensively on the hospital's non-gendered chaplain, Lavender Kelly, who's supposedly overseeing their child's care.
In fact, Kelly is reportedly responsible for finding the child his first foster home.
And who is Lavender Kelly, exactly?
Well, here's a photo of a quote-unquote Lavender Kelly.
And surprising absolutely no one, Kelly is a gender ideologue and an LGBT activist.
The Daily Mail reports that Lavender Kelly posted on Facebook in 2022 that children should be transitioned without their parents' consent, if necessary.
And you might be wondering, What a children's hospital, why they would employ somebody like this, who's clearly focused more on activism than medicine.
But as we know, many children's hospitals, including Children's National, are activist operations now.
I mean, if the name Children's Hospital is, if you're remembering this institution from a couple of years ago, this is the same hospital that told Libs of TikTok on the phone that they perform, quote, gender-affirming hysterectomies on 16-year-olds and, quote, younger kids.
That's an act of barbarism that even so-called trans healthcare providers, quote-unquote, many of them typically shy away from, at least in public.
Because publicly, it's too much, even for them.
But it's not too much for Children's National and their non-gendered chaplain.
This is the kind of hospital that apparently gets to decide whether the government can take your child from you.
Now, the only way that horror stories like this happen is if courts allow them to happen unilaterally.
There's no law in this country that allows hospitals to take your son away because the hospital says your son is really a girl.
Just like there's no law in Australia that says a woman is anyone who says they're a woman.
But courts increasingly have no problem inventing new laws to this effect, out of the blue, and then enforcing them.
Rather than answering the question, what is a woman, the judicial system is punishing people who actually have a working definition.
It's taking their kids away, in some cases, and doing it to very little fanfare.
As I said, that story in Maryland broke last month, and it's only now really starting to circulate in social media from what I've seen.
What that means is that, as easy as it may be to hope that Australia's completely unscientific and arbitrary understanding of gender won't be adopted by judges in this country, the truth is that, in at least one case so far, it already has been.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Finding great candidates to hire can be like trying to find a needle in
the haystack.
Extremely challenging, to put it mildly.
You're sorting through piles of resumes with not enough candidates having the right skills or experience.
But that's not the case with ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter finds amazing candidates for you, and they find them fast.
Right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter starts finding qualified candidates immediately after the role is posted, thanks to its smart technology.
It doesn't just cast a wide net and hope for the best.
They're taking a proactive approach.
ZipRecruiter's cutting-edge technology actively seeks out candidates with the skills and experience that you've need.
Once you've reviewed your list of qualified candidates, you can invite your top choices to apply, and this streamlined process encourages them to apply sooner and also allows you to fill the role a whole lot faster.
So, if you want to take advantage of this and ditch the other hiring sites and let ZipRecruiter find what you're looking for, that is the needle in the haystack, you can see why four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
Just go to this exclusive web address right now to try ZipRecruiter for free.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
All right, so yesterday we released a sneak peek of another scene of my new film, Amiracist, premiering September 13th.
Tickets on sale at Amiracist.com.
And in this scene, you'll get a look at my experience at a race-to-dinner event.
And race-to-dinner is something, if you've never heard of it, run by two women, Saira Rao and Regina Jackson are their names.
And the whole idea Is that white women pay these two other ladies to come to dinner and call them racist for two hours, which, you know, if that sounds like a splendid time to you, well then, as far as I know, race to dinner is still running, so you can set up your own dinner and pay for it.
Now, I was not able to attend the dinner because I'm not a woman, and that is actually a rule that they enforce.
Of course, as we know, as we just covered, they couldn't tell you what a woman is, but they do enforce it.
So I had to find some other way to get in the room.
And really, I wanted to earn my seat at the table as part of this journey that I was on in the film and am still on, as you know.
And so in this scene, you'll see it's not the entire race to dinner experience, but it's a little chunk of it.
And you will see, crucially, the moment when I do, in fact, earn my seat at the table, whether the other people at the table like it or not.
Let's watch.
I used to be a white woman, an unsuccessful one, for many decades, and it was a miserable experience.
And really, the hatred of yourselves and each other is, like, the most.
The not seeing your power.
The being afraid.
Like, all you do is talk s*** about each other, talk s*** about yourself.
Oh my God, I'm so fat!
That's all they do.
I'm telling you.
These white women?
But it's, it's, that's it.
It's, I'm so fat, I'm so stupid, I'm blah blah blah.
Sorry.
Your kids are watching you.
And they're watching you talking about each other, raging against the machine, or being silent,
or whatever the hell it is that you're doing or not doing.
And they know that you're not doing [AUDIO OUT
That's so important.
That is so important what you just said.
It's really important.
That's all.
You may have to add Gene to our team.
Oh!
I would love to take a seat and join you.
No, you're not allowed to.
Oh, okay.
Definitely not allowed.
Okay.
I do have my, I have my DEI.
Certification that I got.
So... Not saying I'm an expert, but I'm also not a novice, so... Okay.
White people are starved for these conversations.
We are.
We're so starving.
Yeah.
We are so starving for this.
Anyone else?
Want to say anything?
I'll just say one thing.
I'm so glad we can have these conversations, and I'll be done, but I'm just so glad that we could all get together to have these conversations.
That's all I wanted to say.
Thank you.
Is he an actor?
Are you an actor?
Oh, no.
Can you let us... We're trying to listen and trying to have this conversation.
Okay.
You know, we're all acting all the time in our lives, and I think that that's part of the problem, you know?
That it's like we're all trying to play a part rather than just being real and having these uncomfortable conversations.
And that's what I'm always trying to tell people.
Especially, you know, white women.
No offense, but... No, but see, like, you're a white dude.
There's power positions, and, uh, you know, it's... Pointing... pointing... White people pointing fingers at each other is not helpful.
You know, I've been on this journey for so long, and just to see you guys at the table having this conversation has been really enlightening for me.
Anyway, got the DEI certification.
And I'm just on the journey.
All right, you ladies have a great night.
Decolonize yourself.
Do your own white supremacy dismantling.
And then you can start to bring in other people.
Can I just say one last thing?
Can I just propose a toast?
I mean, just raise a glass if you're racist.
And that's the thing.
Oh, I'm not racist.
Well, all the rest of you.
To racists.
Am I racist?
Rated PG-13.
Buy tickets now.
Good, you know, nice toast at the end there.
I was glad that they would take part in that with me.
I don't want to say much else about the scene because I want you to watch the movie and see it, and so I'm not going to explain anything else.
It does.
If that was painfully uncomfortable, then the entire experience is even more so.
Only thing I will stress, again, is that, yes, this is all real.
Race to Dinner is a real thing, and those women are really attending.
There are no actors in the clip, except for me, as I was accused of being anyway.
So, it's all real.
We went into these environments in real life, and everything you see is Is unscripted entirely.
And as it might be, it's hard to believe some of it.
It's hard to believe, especially that events like that can even exist.
Like you see that and you think, well, that's, there's no way that that looks like something from, you know, it's a scene in a movie, but people don't do that in real life.
They do, they do.
That's a real, those people really exist.
They're out there right now, walking around.
Believe it or not.
All right, the big political news on Friday, RFK Jr.
endorsed Donald Trump.
He came out at a rally in Arizona and threw his support behind Trump.
Huge moment.
How much will it help Trump in the polls?
I have no idea.
That's my analysis.
I don't know.
I would guess that it would help him noticeably, significantly.
RFK Jr.
has a large and devoted following.
Not large enough for him to have won himself, but certainly large enough, I would think, to be a real asset to Trump when added to Trump's much larger following.
But I've also said many times that I'm backing out of the political prediction game.
I'm not making any official political predictions.
I especially don't want to officially predict that RFK Jr.
will help put Trump over the top, because my predictions are always wrong.
So if I officially predict that, it's not going to happen.
I would only say that from my vantage point, it seems rather clear that his support will That will be a very big help.
Now, RFK Jr.' 's family, his siblings, I think, seem to be worried that this is going to help Trump in a big way, which is why they put out a statement after RFK Jr.'
's endorsement condemning him for it and saying that RFK Jr.'
's endorsement of Trump is a betrayal of the family, it's a sad story, and all these kinds of other things.
So first, before we talk about that, actually, RFK Jr.
himself responded to his family condemning him on Fox News yesterday, so let's watch that first.
This decision is not without personal cost for you.
Your own family went to the White House on St.
Patrick's Day, took a huge picture with President Biden, made clear who they were supporting.
Friday night, your siblings issued this statement.
You posted on X Friday night saying you're grateful to your amazing wife because the decision that you've made is one that she's uncomfortable with.
that our father and our family hold most dear.
You posted on X Friday night saying you're grateful to your amazing wife because the decision that you've made
is one that she's uncomfortable with.
So talk to us about the personal backlash you have to deal with in moving forward.
Yeah, I mean, you know, my family is at the center of the Democratic Party.
I have five members of my family that are working for the Biden administration.
President Biden has a bust of my father behind him at the Oval Office.
He's been a family friend for many, many years.
And my family is, I understand that they're troubled by my decisions, but you know, I love my family.
I feel like we were raised in a milieu where we were encouraged to debate each other and debate ferociously and passionately about things but to still love each other.
So, you know, they can They're free to take their positions on these issues.
There are many, many members of my family who are working in my campaign, who are supporting me.
I have a very big family.
There's a few of them that are troubled.
But, you know, I think we all need to be able to disagree with each other and still love each other.
So that was a very gracious response.
And one thing I'll say about RFK Jr.
is that he seems like a decent person.
He seems like a good man.
I disagree still with many of his political views because he's still quite liberal on most things.
But he gets some very important things right, and he seems like a good guy, and a morally and politically courageous person, as well, as we can see here.
His siblings, on the other hand, are a bunch of disgusting, slimy, gutless snakes.
I mean, attacking your own brother publicly because of a political disagreement is just inexcusable.
I'm trying to imagine a situation where it would actually be justified and necessary to denounce a member of your own family publicly.
I'm sure there are scenarios where that would be justified, but off the top of my head, I can't think of anything.
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a scenario where it would actually be okay or necessary to come out publicly and denounce your own family member.
Now, I can imagine plenty of actually terrible things a member of your family could do, but even in those situations, do you need to publicly denounce them for it?
And certainly, if we can come up with scenarios where that might be necessary.
Your brother endorsing someone you don't like for president definitely isn't one of those scenarios.
Because there should be almost nothing that would make you turn your back on your family publicly.
Which isn't to say that you can't, doesn't mean that you have to publicly agree with everything that somebody in your family does.
It doesn't even mean that you can't publicly disagree necessarily.
With positions that they take, but denouncing is a whole other thing.
And the funny thing is that they accuse RFK Jr.
of betrayal, but that's exactly what this is.
RFK Jr.
having political views that they don't agree with, that's not a betrayal.
That's just him.
He's his own man.
But denouncing your brother publicly, that is a betrayal of just the lowest kind.
Just absolutely despicable behavior.
But overall, very good news for Trump that RFK Jr.
is on his team.
Let's move to something not so good for Trump.
Actually, quite bad.
Trump posted this on Truth Social on Friday.
This was just really a couple hours before the RFK Jr.
endorsement.
He posted this.
My administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights.
End of statement.
This is just bad on every level.
It's the wrong move.
It's the wrong thing to say on every level.
There's no way to approach this that makes it seem like the right thing.
Now, first of all, on the merits, morally speaking, we should never be legitimizing the concept of reproductive rights.
So-called reproductive rights is an idea invented by baby killers for baby killers to justify baby killing, and that's it.
And before the baby killing movement, nobody was going around talking about reproductive rights.
It didn't exist as a concept.
So this is a concept that was invented purely for one reason and one reason only, which is to justify the murder of babies.
And morally, you cannot legitimize it or offer any support for it whatsoever.
But, you know, there will be people on the right, I know, who Well, hear me say that, make the moral argument, and they'll say that I'm being a purist, right?
That I'm engaged in some kind of, this is a purity, I'm in a purity spiral right now because I'm saying this.
And they'll say, hey, we have to win an election, and I need to get off my high horse because this is politics, and this is what politics is all about.
Trump can't do anything, he can't enact any policies, he can't enact pro-life policies unless he gets an office, and he has to get an office, and so you gotta do what you gotta do to get there.
That'll be the argument.
And politically, that argument is persuasive to me, in most cases, if it's true.
Right?
If it's true that there's You know, there's a game you gotta play, there's a line you gotta walk, just so you can get into office and then do all the things that we want you to do.
If it's true, that's compelling to me.
And what I mean is, there'd be very few cases where I would just say, you know what?
Even if it's politically suicidal, I need the candidate to say this or take this position.
Because politics doesn't matter.
Now, I'm well aware that in a political campaign, of course, politics matters.
It's a campaign.
You could say it's like, when it comes down to it, it's all that matters.
Because if you don't win, you have to win.
You have to win first.
And if you don't win, then nothing else matters politically.
But the problem is that this isn't good politics either.
Okay, so politically, what do you achieve by endorsing reproductive rights?
Whose votes are you winning?
Let's start with this, this basic reality here.
The vast majority of women who will only vote for a pro-abortion candidate are not going to vote for Trump no matter what.
Trump could hold a campaign inside a Planned Parenthood.
He could be inside one holding a campaign.
Okay, he could kick J.D.
Vance off the ticket and put the CEO of Planned Parenthood as the new vice president, and it wouldn't matter for the vast majority of these kinds of voters.
They hate Trump.
They will never not hate him.
And if they care that much about abortion, well then why vote for Trump when you could just vote for a lifelong pro-abortion woman?
For the vast majority of these voters who care that much about abortion, you have Kamala Harris.
You can't out-abortion Kamala Harris.
If anyone cares that much about abortion rights, or quote-unquote reproductive rights, there's no reason why they wouldn't just vote for Kamala.
She's the real deal on abortion.
Now, she's not the real deal on, like, anything else, but on abortion, she loves it.
She always has.
When she talks about how she spent her whole life protecting abortion rights, that's actually true.
That's, like, the one true thing she says.
So, um, for the majority of these kinds of voters, they have Kamala Harris.
She's the abortion queen.
You're not going to siphon off votes by just saying the phrase reproductive rights.
Because almost everyone who's impressed with that phrase, they have Kamala Harris.
Again, when she was Attorney General of California, she actively defended Planned Parenthood as they were selling the body parts of murdered children.
And she sent in law enforcement officers to arrest the journalists who exposed it.
I mean, that's how much this woman believes in child sacrifice.
So that's the case for the huge majority of pro-abortion voters.
You cannot win them, period, no matter what you say about abortion.
We gotta start with that reality.
It's just true.
What about the people closer to the middle?
What about the voters who generally like Trump, don't like Kamala, but they also care about reproductive rights, so-called?
Because that's really what we're talking about.
When you make a play, when Trump comes out and says, I'm for reproductive rights, You're making a play for a very specific voter.
It has to be a voter who, again, generally likes Trump, or at least is okay with him, generally doesn't like Kamala, but cares about so-called reproductive rights.
That's it.
That's the whole demo that you're potentially appealing to.
How big is that group?
How big is that group?
I mean, I'm not going to say that that group doesn't exist.
I think it does exist, but I'm not sure I've ever personally met in my life the voter who would vote for Trump if not for the abortion issue.
I'm told these voters exist.
I've never spoken to one or met one in my entire life.
But whatever, sure, they exist.
They do.
In some number, they exist.
Well, the question is, first of all, Are they going to even buy Trump's sudden passion for quote-unquote reproductive rights?
And then second, this is the biggest question, are these people more numerous than the pro-life voters that you alienate with this kind of language?
In other words, does Trump end up with a net gain making a play like this?
Does he gain enough of the pro-Trump, pro-abortion vote Wherever the hell that vote exists, does it gain enough of that vote to make up for the pro-life voters that are just like utterly demoralized and alienated by the Republican presidential candidate endorsing reproductive rights?
In those words.
I think the answer is definitely not.
Definitely, definitely not.
Politically, the risk of coming out for quote-unquote reproductive rights is that the small number of people you might win over with a tweet like that will be dwarfed by the voters that you demoralize.
And sure, a certain portion of the demoralized voters will still vote for you, because they recognize, rightly so, that you're still a lot better than Kamala Harris.
But some of them won't.
I mean, demoralized voters, that's not what you want.
Right?
On election day.
So that's... So again, just looking at this politically.
I mean, you can't... If your answer is, hey, it's politics, man.
Stop with the purity stuff.
I think it's bad politics.
I think it's bad morally.
I think it's bad politics.
I don't see the political win here.
Now, all that said, it is true in a literal sense that conservatives and pro-lifers
support "reproductive rights." If we were to actually define both of those words
the way that they are really defined, reproductive and rights,
and we were to understand the term reproductive rights correctly in a definitional sense,
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Then it would be true that actually, yeah, as a pro-lifer, we believe in reproductive rights.
Because, understood correctly, reproductive rights must mean two things.
First, the right of a woman to decide when she reproduces.
And yeah, we affirm that, right?
Of course we do.
A woman should never be forced to reproduce.
Because reproduction happens at conception.
And biologically and scientifically, reproduction is conception.
That's when reproduction occurs.
Which is why abortion actually has nothing to do with reproductive rights, so-called, because reproduction's already happened.
It's too late for that.
No pro-lifer believes that a woman should be forced to conceive, but once she does conceive, once reproduction has already happened, You cannot kill the human that has been produced.
And if you do, you're not exercising reproductive rights.
It's too late for that.
Reproduction has happened already.
Which is why, as I've explained many times, when a woman gives birth, okay, we don't say at the moment of birth that that is reproduction.
Does a woman reproduce when she gives birth?
No, of course not.
She reproduced before that.
I mean, you can't give birth unless you've already reproduced.
There has to be, you know, a person there to give birth to.
So reproductive rights could mean that if we were like an honest country and we used words in the way that they're supposed to be used.
You could also talk about reproductive rights from the vantage point of the child.
That the child that has been produced, the child that is the result of reproduction, has the right to be born.
So you could mean reproductive rights that way.
And either of those senses of the term would be valid, definitionally.
Much more valid than the way that the term is used by the pro-abortion side.
But the problem is that, like, that's not right now what people mean when they say it.
Now, I would love if we could reclaim the term reproductive rights on the basis that I've just laid out.
So that 10 years from now, when you use the term reproductive rights, everyone understands that that's actually a pro-life point.
But we're not there right now.
We're not even close to that.
So if you just say, I believe in reproductive rights, and leave it at that with no further explanation, 100% of everyone hears that and interprets it as, oh, you favor abortion.
So if you want to make the case, if you want to make this kind of case about reproductive rights, then you have to make the case.
You have to make the argument.
You have to elaborate.
You can't just leave it at one sentence, reproductive rights.
Not the right road to be traveling down here at all.
Okay.
Here's a fascinating story.
AP News has this.
NASA decided Saturday it's too risky to bring two astronauts back to Earth in Boeing's troubled new capsule.
They'll have to wait until next year for a ride home with SpaceX.
What should have been a week-long test flight for the pair will now last more than eight months.
The seasoned pilots have been stuck at the International Space Station since the beginning of June.
A cascade of vexing thruster failures and helium leaks in the new capsule marred their trip to the space station, and they ended up in a holding pattern as engineers conducted tests and debated what to do about the flight back.
AP correspondent Julie Walker reports NASA will bring stranded Boeing Starliner astronauts home on SpaceX.
After almost three months, the decision finally came down from NASA's highest ranks on Saturday.
They're going to come back in a SpaceX capsule in February.
So SpaceX to the rescue on this one.
And yeah, they've been trapped up there.
Or they will, when all is said and done, they will be trapped up in the space station for eight months.
You know, one of the really interesting things about this, one of the many interesting things, when you think about these astronauts trapped in the space station, Is that you have to consider what a day actually is on the International Space Station, because we think of a day as a 24-hour period, but that's relative, of course.
A day is only a 24-hour period on Earth, because of the Earth's rotation on its axis.
Axis, rather.
And, you know, so...
In a 24-hour period, you'll experience, if you're on Earth, one sunset and one sunrise, and that's what makes a day.
But on a space station, you actually orbit the Earth 16 times in a 24-hour period, so you experience 16 sunrises, which means that in effect, These astronauts will not be in the space station for 240 days or whatever eight months is.
They'll actually be on the space station for closer to 4,000 days from their perspective.
Because that's how many, essentially that's how many sunrises they're going to experience in that time.
Because the space station is traveling like 17,000 miles an hour around the Earth.
And to put that in perspective, a commercial airline travels about 500, 600 miles an hour top speed.
So the space station's going about 30 times faster than a commercial aircraft will travel at its fastest.
So it's pretty mind-boggling.
And yet, you know, even traveling 17,000 miles an hour, that's basically a snail's pace in cosmic terms.
Like a craft that's going that speed would take I don't know.
Many, many centuries to make it to the nearest solar system outside of our own.
That's about four light years.
Light travels at 670 million miles an hour.
And it takes four years at 670 million miles an hour.
It takes four years to make that trip.
So how long would it take at 17,000 miles an hour?
I don't know, but I can't do that math, but it's a long, long time.
That's kind of the point for me with this story, that we are just so unfathomably far from being an advanced civilization in galactic terms.
If an actually advanced civilization that can traverse space and visit other solar systems and so on, if they were to look at us with our clunky little space station, you know, crawling around the Earth basically, they would view us the way that we view jungle tribes still chucking spears at each other.
And that's why even though these astronauts are stranded on a space station that is, I mean, basically a stone's throw away.
Again, in galactic terms, it's a stone's throw.
It's right, it's, you know, it's like across this room practically in cosmic terms.
But still, it's a monumental feat and will take eight months just to bring them home from the space station.
And I don't mean that to diminish what we've achieved in space.
I just mean to emphasize how gargantuan a thing this really is, you know, to really get out into space.
That's why I always think it's dumb when, and I don't want to, you know, open up this can of worms again.
I don't really care if I do, to be honest with you.
But when you hear, as people so often say, well, we went to the moon in the 60s.
Why are we on Mars by now?
And sometimes you hear that sentiment just generally, but oftentimes you hear that from people that are trying to claim that the moon landing never happened.
This is like their number one piece of evidence.
We went in the 60s, why aren't we somewhere?
Why aren't we on Pluto?
Because space is really big.
Okay?
That's why.
The moon is 240,000 miles away.
You know how far Mars is?
You know how far Mars is?
140 million miles away.
Okay, so that's why it takes a lot longer to figure out how to get there.
there.
And to get there alive, you know, making that trip, I think it'd take, I think the round trip is two or three years.
Being exposed to all the radiation and deep space and all these, I mean, it's just, it's like a suicide mission.
So it's a bit like if somebody walks to the house across the street, and then you wonder why they also haven't walked to Brazil.
The distances are just unthinkably vast.
And this is how long progress takes.
And we are just in the infancy.
So in space-age terms, right, we basically just invented the wheel a few decades ago.
Getting to the moon.
Getting to your own moon is inventing the wheel in terms of space travel.
And we just did that.
So, another analogy would be like finding a primitive society that just invented the wheel and then checking back 50 years later and expecting that they have sports cars, right?
And the internet.
It takes a lot longer.
It could take thousands of years.
It could take thousands of more years.
Before we can really travel through space in any real significant way.
Anyway, fascinating story.
My new film, The Daily Wire's first ever theatrical release, Am I Racist?, is about to hit theaters on September 13th, and we have already more than doubled the number of theaters nationwide since we announced it.
Your advance ticket purchases are making the left very, very nervous.
Every ticket sold right now in theaters that are already showing the film helps push it
into even more theaters across the country.
So congratulations.
You are officially part of the vast right wing conspiracy to bring common sense back
to America.
And am I racist?
I teamed up with the same group of white guys who blew up the leftist gender theory and
what is woman now we're taking on the weird world of D.E.I.
What we've uncovered is both hilarious and enraging.
Well the response to advance tickets has been amazing, but we're not done yet.
If Amiracist is playing at a theater near you, head on over to Amiracist.com and grab your tickets in advance today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
It may not always be obvious.
Much of what I do for you is off-camera, out of sight, in the shadows, in silence.
And I don't tell you about the sacrifices.
I don't come to you asking for a pat on the back for it.
I don't ask you to say thank you.
But this time I am, because I have just endured potentially the greatest suffering that I think any man in this century has ever endured.
And I did it all just so that I could record this very segment.
I listened to an entire episode of the podcast, Call Her Daddy.
Not the entire episode.
It was like two thirds of an episode at 1.8 speed, but I listened.
And I suffered.
Now, in case you aren't familiar, Call Her Daddy is a hugely successful podcast hosted by a woman named Alex Cooper.
And it's so successful that Cooper just last week signed a $125 million deal with Sirius to move her show over to their platform.
The show, which focuses on sex and relationship discussions, is massively popular with young women in particular.
And the reason I'm bringing it up is because of a short clip from a recent episode that has generated some conversation on social media.
But in order for me to talk about the clip, You know, I felt that I needed to understand the context, which is why I listened to most of the episode that the clip comes from.
So before I play it for you, I will give you the bullet points from this episode.
Actually, it turned out that the context really was not needed.
Um, but I didn't listen to all that for nothing, so I'm going to tell you anyway.
In this episode, Alex recounts the very long story of how she once flew to Paris to meet up with some guy that she met on a dating app.
It takes her about 45 hours, or felt that way, to tell this whole story, but I can summarize it in like 45 seconds.
She flew to Paris.
She met the guy.
He wasn't as attractive in person as he was in his profile picture.
They didn't connect.
They didn't like each other that much.
But she stayed with him for a week anyway and had sex with him, which she initiated.
There were other indignities that she suffered and which she describes in agonizing detail.
For example, the toilet in their Airbnb didn't flush properly, so she had to hold down the flusher for 10 seconds.
Truly the sort of trial and tribulation that few humans on Earth can comprehend.
After a week of this sort of torture, she left.
And later she found out that the guy gave her an STD.
And that's it.
That's the whole epic tale.
She went to spend a week in Paris with a guy that she didn't know and had sex with him even though she didn't know him or even like him.
And she paid the price.
The end.
Now, why tell this story?
And more confusingly, why in God's name would anyone willingly by choice listen to it?
Well, that I can't say, but it is deeply troubling to consider that apparently millions of young women sit around listening to this person drone on and on and on about her incredibly dull, uninteresting sexual exploits, even when there's no discernible point at the end of it, and she never offers anything approaching an actual insight.
Women who spend their time listening to this sort of tripe cannot complain about men who watch porn because it's the same sort of junk, it's the same poison in your brain, just in different forms.
So anyway, all of that setup finally brings us to the clip that I want to talk about.
Here is where Alex, after taking us through the blandest, most excruciatingly dull adventure of all time, finally answers the one question any intelligent member of the audience might have, and that is, Well, that is if there are any intelligent members of the audience.
But the question is this.
If you didn't like him, and you didn't want to be there, why didn't you just go home?
Let's find out.
I know all of you at home watching this or listening are like, why the f*** didn't I just go home?
And I still to this day can't fully articulate why I didn't leave, which sadly I think is so f*** relatable for women.
Like, why didn't you leave?
Like, you were uncomfortable.
Like, what did you think was going to change?
Like, why did you stay?
Like, I think as backwards as it sounds, Because of how uncomfortable and awkward it was with this person, I didn't know what to do other than stay and suck it up.
Like, I didn't want to make the other person feel more uncomfortable, so I tried to, like, appease the situation and make it better because staying and being miserable somehow felt easier than, like, pissing someone off and getting in this fight and, like, leaving and acknowledging how awkward it was.
And since he wasn't saying anything, I was not going to say anything.
And, like, I don't know.
Maybe only women will understand that.
But, like, it is confusing and yet, like, it's not confusing at all.
Like, I feel like we've all been there where we're like, I didn't really want to do that or I wasn't really into it.
But then, like, I didn't know how to get myself out of the situation.
And I'm, like, in an apartment with these two men and, like, he had already been being snappy.
It was just awful.
It was a bad situation.
So.
It's a $125 million podcast right there.
What you just heard.
Now, this excuse that she gives, an excuse for shacking up for a week with a guy that she didn't know or like, and having sex with him despite being actively repulsed by him, this excuse has resonated with her audience.
Many of the Instagram comments under this video are echoing these sentiments that she expresses.
They claim that it is in fact very relatable for women, as she says it is.
And they say that this is why it's unfair to ask women why they don't leave uncomfortable situations.
You know, you can't ask them that.
It's not fair because women don't know how to get themselves out of those situations, according to them.
But one woman who is not praising Alex or shouting amen is Mary Morgan.
She's a commentator and host of a show called Pop Culture Crisis, which you can and should go find on YouTube.
Mary is actually interesting and insightful, and in a just world would be the one getting the big money contract from Sirius.
She made a very compelling point in response to this video, and I'll read what she said on Twitter, and then I have a few things I want to say to kind of build off of it.
But I want to give her credit for, you know, for originating this insight.
She wrote, quote, I can't give you a better explanation for how Me Too came into existence than this video right here.
Women's propensity to be highly agreeable paired with a culture that encourages promiscuity, that's one dangerous combination.
It's unconscionable that young women rely on influencers like this one for moral guidance, blind leading the blind.
Quoting now, she's quoting, women will say like this and wonder why the entire planet and every major religion has imposed strict social restrictions on their sovereignty since the dawn of time in every place humans have ever lived.
Close quote.
It's a meme phrase, but it's so true.
Women need authority.
They need protection from their worst impulses and from men who are dangerous and lecherous.
The death of norms like chivalry and chastity has nothing to do with women's emancipation and everything to do with women no longer holding a place of high esteem in our society.
Women are no longer regarded as creatures in need of spiritual and physical protection.
Feminists push for this to our own peril.
Now, I don't want to belabor the point, but I have to say that there's more insight in those few sentences than in the entire catalog of Call Her Daddy transcripts combined for as long as the show has existed.
And you don't have to agree with everything that Mary said there, but this is someone that's thinking about an issue, working through it, trying to understand where we are in our culture and how we got here.
You know, like having a thought about something.
Here, I want to share a thought with you that I'm having.
If you're going to listen to someone blabber on a podcast, like I do on this one every day, that should be your first and most essential requirement.
Does this person have any insight to offer?
Even if I don't agree, do they have an insight?
Do they have a point of view, a perspective?
I can't imagine why anybody would sit and listen to someone on a podcast when the answer to that question is obviously no.
But lots of people do.
So in any case, the thrust of Mary's point is obviously correct.
The whole point of chivalry was to protect and honor women.
And men stood out in front and took the lead, assuming the role of protector and provider.
And they did this because they believed that women should be cherished.
Now, our culture today says that women don't need to be protected or provided for or cherished.
But the results of this new philosophy have categorically proven the philosophy wrong.
And it creates the kind of Catch-22 you find in Alex's story, or as Mary pointed out, so many of the tales of woe we heard about during the Me Too era, and before that, and after it.
Because after all, what is Alex really saying here?
She's saying that she needed to be led.
She needed the man to take the lead, take the initiative, understand the situation, act decisively, and do the thing that she was too scared or too confused to do.
She needed the man to say to her, Hey Alex, this obviously isn't working out.
We aren't getting along.
We aren't connecting.
Let's book your plane tickets home and get you to the airport.
In fact, she really needed the man to take the lead well before that.
She needed him to be the one to say, hey, you know, we've never met.
We don't know each other.
Let's not plan a vacation together for a week when we don't even know each other.
Why don't we start by going out for coffee tomorrow afternoon instead?
She is confessing to being too guided by her emotions, too tentative and indecisive, too lacking in assertiveness to say either of those things.
She needed the man to say it, the man to lead.
But she'll never say that she needed the man to lead because her feminist principles will not allow her to ever utter a statement like that under any circumstance.
And this is the same of every other feminist in the country.
But the problem is that although they will not say, I need the man to lead, they still expect it.
And they still blame him for failing to do it when push comes to shove.
And there are too many examples of this dynamic to count.
As established, the Me Too era provides us with dozens, if not hundreds.
In fact, we see an example of this kind of thing In every case where, let's say, two drunk college students hook up, only for one of the drunk participants, always the female one, always, to wake up the next morning and decide that she was raped.
Right?
She was too drunk to consent, she claims, and perhaps she was, but then so was he.
So why is he the rapist and not her?
Why aren't they both rapists?
Better yet, why can't we admit that neither of them are?
They both did something reckless and self-destructive, and now they feel the shame and guilt that a person ought to feel after such an experience.
Well, the answer is that all of the people looking at a mutually inebriated sexual encounter between a man and a woman, and exclusively blaming the man, which is what literally always happens in these situations, are blaming him because they expect him To lead.
They expect him to be the one to take control of the ship and guide it to a safe harbor.
They expect him, not her, him, always him, to have the strength and foresight to say, hey, we've both had too much to drink, this isn't a good idea.
And if he doesn't say that, he's blamed for his lack of leadership.
She's not blamed.
Ever.
Because you don't blame a follower for not being led.
All of the people pointing the finger of blame will not acknowledge what they're actually blaming the guy for.
Indeed, they'll desperately deny that they want any such thing as him to lead.
So the man gets blamed for not doing a thing that the people doing the blaming actually tell him not to do.
So first they say, how dare you think that you can lead a woman?
And next thing you know, they say, how dare you not lead this woman?
Except they don't say those exact words.
Instead, in this case, they would say something like, you're a rapist, now go to prison.
Now the feminists get to have their cake and eat it too, while the men are stuck with the lose-lose.
If the man doesn't take the lead, he's a loser and a creep.
If he does, he's a bully, a misogynist, and also a creep.
The feminists want us to be a matriarchal, female-led society, but they don't want any of the accountability and blame that comes with that.
Which is why you'll notice, right, not a single feminist will listen to that story from Alex Cooper and say to her, you should be ashamed.
How could you put that poor, helpless man in that awkward position?
Why don't you step up and do the right thing?
In fact, Alex says that she initiated sex with a guy who clearly wasn't that into it.
So if the feminists were consistent, they would accuse her of rape.
That's what they would do in the reverse scenario.
But they're not going to do that here.
They will not ever do that here.
Because they want the benefits of leadership with none of the responsibility, none of the pressure, none of the blame that comes with it.
It's the burden of leadership that they will not accept.
Which is why they can never be leaders.
And that's why a society that smashes the patriarchy ends up shiftless, stranded, and leaderless.
It's the classic cautionary tale.
It's a mutiny on the bounty, but played out in an entire civilization instead of just one ship.
The mutineers in that story staged a revolt, sent the captain out adrift in the middle of the sea, They have control of the boat now, but there's no one fit to lead it.
All they could think about was how much they hated the captain for his leadership style.
They never considered what the alternative actually is, or that there really isn't an alternative.
Now, the feminists are the mutineers in this case, and they've taken control of a ship that they don't know how to steer, and even if they did, they wouldn't know where to steer it to.
They didn't like the idea of the man leading, but as we've discovered, they like the idea of themselves leading even less.
That's how you end up with a society in a state of decay like ours.
And it's how you end up with a woman like Alex Cooper having a extremely popular podcast.
And that is why she is today, I'm afraid to say, cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Godspeed.
Growing up, I never thought much about race.
It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me.
Am I racist?
I would really appreciate it if you left.
I'm trying to learn.
I'm on this journey.
If I'm going to sort this out, I need to go deeper undercover.
Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert.
Here's my certifications.
What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness.
This is more for you than this for you.
Is America inherently racist?
The word inherent is challenging there.
You want to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument?
America is racist to its bones.
So inherently?
Yeah.
This country is a piece of...
White.
Folks.
White.
Trash.
White supremacy.
White woman.
White boy.
Is there a black person around here?
There's a black person right here.
Does he not exist?
Hi, Robin.
Hi.
What's your name?
I'm Matt.
I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful.
