A 2016–2018 GLAAD study shows millennial men’s LGBT support plummeting from 60% to 30%, with allies dropping from 63% to 45%. The host links this to "transgender ideology," citing cases like Jonathan Yaniv’s court-mandated misnaming and Twitter’s censorship of Kian Bexti, while criticizing Toronto’s AR-15 ban as a misguided attack on law-abiding citizens. Alberta’s UCP opposes federal firearms control, proposing its own enforcement. The shift reflects millennial resistance to forced participation in shared spaces and extreme demands like gender-neutral locker rooms or punishing biological facts, questioning whether trans activism’s rapid rise—once excluded from psychiatric classification—has alienated even LGBT allies by overreaching cultural norms. [Automatically generated summary]
I didn't see it till yesterday conducted by GLAAD, which is a gay rights group, on how support for LGBT politics has fallen in half amongst millennial men.
It's fallen from 60 something support to 30 something.
I'm shocked by it.
I've got a theory, and I hope you'll listen to my theory, and I'd like to hear what you think of it.
Before I let you listen to the podcast, please consider becoming a premium subscriber.
It's $8 a month, but you get access to the full video version of the podcast, plus other goodies too.
It's $8 a month.
It helps us keep going.
I'd really appreciate it.
Go to premium.rebelnews.com.
Okay, here's my podcast about this interesting study.
Tonight, a survey shows that the number of millennials who describe themselves as LGBT allies has fallen nearly in half.
Why?
It's December 9th, and this is the Edgewood Vance Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I'm publishing it, is because it's my bloody right to do so.
I came across a survey yesterday.
It's a few months old, so it's not breaking news, but I hadn't seen it reported before, so maybe it's news to you like it was news to me.
It's an annual survey sponsored by a leading gay activist group in America called GLAD.
GLAAD was founded in the 1980s, and it stood for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
GLAD.
But they changed it just to GLAD.
They no longer spell it out because they forgot the B and the T in LGBT.
B stands for bisexual.
You don't hear a lot about bisexuality in sexual politics.
It really isn't that different than gay politics.
But the T, well, GLAAD was missing the T for trans.
And that's about the biggest sin around these days.
I mean, just the other day, our own Kian Bexti was out in Vancouver at a courtroom there where a trans activist-born Jonathan Yaniv, who calls himself Jessica Yaniv, well, he's on trial for weapons offenses.
Pretty crazy.
He brandished an illegal weapon, a taser, on a YouTube video.
So he's been charged with a crime.
And as you can see, the name on the courtroom was the Queen versus Jessica Jonathan Yaniv.
So according to the actual court of law, he's known by both names, which is obviously true.
And his own mother calls him him.
Here, take a look at this video showing that.
Are you crazy?
You answer song.
Go away.
You just smashed your cane over my head.
No, I did not fuck you.
So I tell you all this because whenever Kean would tweet something about the trial, it would be immediately taken down by Twitter.
And Kian would get a message saying that unless he deleted that tweet, he would be suspended.
I think this happened five times to him.
And it was for the high crime of misgendering Yaniv, even though that's simply an accurate report of what the courts say and what his own mom calls him.
Or then there's dead naming.
That is when you refer to someone by their former name.
But like I say, that's what the court calls him.
Keane was just reporting what other people were saying.
Trans politics is so extreme that Twitter literally censored Keen five times.
Another reporter named Anna Slatz from the postmillennial was censored too.
It was crazy.
But now you know why GLAAD doesn't spell out its name anymore, gay and lesbian, etc., because they'd be ripped to shreds by the trans activists because there's no letter T in GLAAD.
The letter T. I'm going to come back to that in a moment.
But first, this survey from a few months ago that I didn't see until yesterday, it's called Accelerating Acceptance.
It's an annual report, a large public opinion survey commissioned by GLAAD and conducted by a reputable polling firm called Harris.
The title, Accelerating Acceptance, pretty self-explanatory.
They want to accelerate the acceptance of gay rights.
So they ask questions that I think are interesting.
I think they ask non-gay people, for example, if they'd be comfortable or uncomfortable in certain situations, having someone gay at your church, seeing gay wedding pictures, learning if family members are gay.
Those are good questions, interesting questions.
You can see the issue that gets the most pushback is learning my child has a lesson on LGBT history in school.
You can see 39% of people would be uncomfortable with that.
Now, what does that mean?
How old is the child at school?
Is it a child of tender years?
Kindergarten, grade one, grade two?
Or a child in high school, 16, 17, 18?
Would it be a genuine neutral history?
Here's what happened, here's what happened.
Or an advocacy-style history?
I think those are important details, don't you?
And I'm not surprised that 39% of people are wary.
And in fact, I bet their concern is actually higher that people are shy about telling upholsters something they know is contrary to the fashion.
All across Canada and the United States, there is a new fashion of having something called transvestite or drag queen story time in schools and libraries with children of very tender years, very young kids.
Is that what they mean by that question?
Or is it a high school class for 18-year-olds?
I see why some people are nervous.
I think most people can be woke about what grown-ups discuss, but those same people could be against the early sexualization of young people talking about sex either straight or gay.
Just leave the kids alone.
I think that is the source of so much opposition to sex ed curriculums these days.
Leftists have been pushing.
Partly it's the junk science, I mean, like the Ontario government's position that there are six genders.
Can you name them?
By the way, being gay isn't a gender.
Can you name the six genders?
I bet you can't.
That's not even science, that's junk science.
But also, why are you talking to grade one kids about sexual things?
They're in grade one.
That's how early Ontario sex ed started.
That's a fact.
But here's what's interesting.
Here's what's new, or at least what was new to me.
Look at the number of millennials who describe themselves as LGBT allies.
That's the phrase that's in popular use.
So just to explain these charts, you can see there's three bars together.
The top very dark line is 2016.
The middle line is 2017.
And the bottom line in each case in light blue is 2018.
So look at that.
The number of 18 to 34-year-olds, those are millennials, who are allies.
So start at the top.
In 2016, 63% of millennials said, I'm an LGBT ally.
Now it's 45%.
That's a plunge.
It was almost two-thirds.
Now it's not even half.
It's fallen for young millennial women from 65% to 52%.
And for young men, it's almost fallen in half.
From 62% of young men in 2016 to 40% the next year to just 35% now.
That is almost falling in half.
What's going on?
I mean, I'm curious.
I'm surprised.
See, support for LGBT hasn't plunged like this for all groups.
It's just young people.
Middle-aged people, senior citizens, they haven't suddenly fallen out with LGBT politics.
Senior citizens, who you might think would be less pro-LGBT because they were born and raised in a more traditional era, their support hasn't fallen in half.
What's going on?
Why do millennials support LGBT rights less than their own grandparents?
Well, here's what the president of GLAAD says.
With the knowledge that erosion in acceptance was primarily happening among younger males, GLAAD launched a program dedicated to working with the video game industry on LGBTQ inclusion to bring LGBTQ characters and stories to a world where male audiences were consuming content.
Really?
So you think it's video games?
You're seriously blaming video games, which apparently were only invented in 2017 or something.
I tell you what, that's not going to make young men more pro-LGBTQ.
It'll probably make them less so.
Imagine having political lecturing imposed on your video games, video games.
I don't play video games, but I'm pretty sure that people who do, they do so for escaping from the BS of our real world, to get away from politics.
Imagine trying to inject woke politics into video games.
It's the reason why Star Wars movies have done so poorly lately.
Stop being woke.
Here's more.
We have taken that idea for granted, and this year's results show that the sharp and quick rise in divisive rhetoric in politics and culture is having a negative influence on younger Americans.
That's their way of blaming Trump.
In fact, GLAAD has a whole campaign to demonize Trump.
If you look here, they say hundreds of anti-gay incidents have happened on Trump's watch.
All right, maybe not 100, but hundreds, but 123 of them.
And I started going through the list.
Okay, so I guess they're not actually by Trump.
This guy, Joe Walsh, he's an anti-Trump, never Trumper.
He's challenging Trump.
How can you blame Trump for what this anti-Trump guy says?
Here's a video by PragerU.
That's social conservatives with a YouTube website.
How's that blaming Trump?
Trump, first of all, are those actually anti-LGBT incidents?
The people are critical of trans extremism or something?
If that's the worst you've got out of a thousand days of Trump, that you got this website here and this guy, I'd say you're in a golden era.
If that's the biggest gripe you can come up with, in fact, Trump appointed an out-of-the-closet gay man, Richard Grinnell, as one of his most senior diplomats in the world, as ambassador to Germany.
Here's Trump campaigning in 2016 with a flag that says LGBT right on it.
He's even got the T on there.
Honestly, can you even remember Trump saying anything about L's or Gs or B's or Ts?
He won't stop talking about J-O-B-S, jobs and trade and getting NATO to pay more and wrestling with China.
Do you really think that LGBT issues are even in his top 10?
You've got to hate Trump pretty bad to blame anything on him if you're a gay rights activist.
I just don't even think he cares one way or the other, frankly.
I think it's pitiful to claim that he's hostile to gays.
Look, he's from Manhattan.
If you're not comfortable with gays and Jews and Italians and the Irish and Puerto Ricans, you're probably living in the wrong borough if you're from Manhattan's.
Trump just doesn't care, I think.
How pitiful that GLAD is trying to blame him for things.
But of course, so is Canada's media party, mind you.
This was a story in Global that I missed when the study came out.
Global News found some academic to say this.
We have to think about the Trump effect and how it is legitimizing anti-minority or anti-equality discourse, some professor said.
That's a factor that would not just affect LGBTQ2.
So now we've got a two in here issues, but potentially others too.
The Trump effect.
In this professor's view, Trump's willingness to speak out against minority groups like the LGBTQ2 community has emboldened American citizens to voice their own discriminatory opinions.
Got it.
I mean, blame Trump.
Why not go the whole way and blame the Russians?
I'm not sure how the Blame Trump theory handles the fact that it's millennials who are turning against the LGBT politics.
I have a theory on this whole thing myself.
And it goes back to Jonathan Yanniv.
See, this GLAAD survey described millennials as people 18 to 34.
That's what they define as millennials.
So that's people just finishing up high school, going to university or college, or starting out in life, a job, starting a family.
I guess if you're at the higher end, like in the 30s, you'd have small kids now, maybe kids in school, maybe joining school sports teams.
So what do millennials still in college see?
What do they hear?
Well, you heard part of it from the president of GLAAD.
They're having woke lectures force-fed to them in video games and everything else, but mainly in the classroom.
Woke culture on campus, men identifying as women and demanding that you call them g or jur or she or whatever.
You might recall a group a couple years ago when there was a group protest against Jordan Peterson at the University of Toronto by a bunch of trans activists shouting at him, demanding that he be fired, demanding he be silenced.
One of the trans activists even physically assaulted our reporter at the time, Lauren Southern.
What do you think other college kids, millennials, think of that?
See, you'll notice that all of my commentary has been about LGBT or LGBTQ or LGBTQ2.
I didn't say gay or lesbian.
Just like GLAAD doesn't say gay or lesbian anymore because it's the T in LGBT, trans.
I think that many millennials are allies of gays and lesbians because they largely don't care.
There have been some societal changes because of the increasing publicity and prominence of gays and lesbians.
And you can be against that morally, but in practical terms, hasn't been a major imposition.
Trans Students and Changing Rooms00:02:37
There's plenty of gays and lesbians in sports, for example.
There are even some sports that are stereotypically gay.
I don't think that bothers most people, but what about when a trans man, the T in LGBT, when a trans man insists he's a woman, okay, but then insists on competing against girls.
Typically, it's some loser who can't cut it as a man competing against men.
So, Presto, he declares he's a woman, and now he keeps winning because he crushes the girls.
That super gross cycling champion.
Oh, and if you dare to speak out against any of this, you'll be demonized.
You'll be punished.
You'll be called a bigot.
Here's a student who was kicked out of a classroom by his teacher for saying there's only two genders.
Which you have seen that there's no such thing as anyone other than male or female.
Look, most people don't want to debate or argue with other students or certainly not their teachers.
That kid was an anomaly, and he had the wits to tape it.
But look at this one.
This is very different.
Look at this trans student who won a school board vote to force the school to let him change in the girls' changing room with all the girls, to get naked with the girls.
Watch his joy and the joy of the school bureaucrats who come to hug him.
But then look at the fear and sorrow in the eyes of a girl who says, Well, she changes in there naked for sports every day.
But yeah, she's not sure she wants to do that anymore.
Take a look at this.
I'm ecstatic.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I feel uncomfortable that my privacy is being invaded as I am a swimmer.
I do change multiple times naked in front of the other students in the locker room.
I understand that the board has an obligation to all students, but I was hoping that they would go about this in a different way that would also accommodate students such as myself.
I think that millennial or Generation Z, the Zoomers, that guy who was kicked out of class and that girl scared to change in the change room, if you ask them what they think of gays or lesbians, the elders and the Gs, I don't think they'd care much.
Privacy Invasion Concerns00:08:15
Just guessing.
But if you ask them what they think of the Ts, the trans, I think they might say they're being bullied.
Politically bullied, socially bullied.
And for that young woman, physically bullied, change in front of me.
No, no, no, I don't think she's an ally of the Ts.
And if you asked them if they were still allies of the LGBT, I'm not surprised at all that you'd find those numbers plummeting.
But hey, it's easier to blame Donald Trump, isn't it, than just to keep banning anyone who calls Jonathan Yaneve Jonathan or a man, except for his own mother, I guess.
Stay with us for more.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Could you please describe the process of acquiring a gun in the city of Toronto?
By that, I mean a legal gun, of course.
So I would defer to either SDFA police or legal.
but no, I do not know the answer to that question.
How do you purchase a gun?
That was the question.
A legal, legal gun.
A legal gun.
How do you acquire a legal gun in Toronto?
Good question.
Does anybody know?
we've got some hands up in the audience.
I don't think anybody knows.
So, Speaker, it really then, if you could just hold my time for a moment then, please.
It really speaks to an issue I think that we need to have a better understanding of.
That is City Hall in Toronto.
That clip was excerpted by the Canadian firearms, one of the firearms groups.
because you wouldn't find that news anywhere else.
City Hall wants to ban guns, make them tougher to get.
But they literally have no idea how to get one now.
They just know for sure that whatever it is now isn't enough and they want to do something, or at least to be seen to do something.
Joining us now by this guy from Edmonton is our friend Lauren Gunter, senior columnist at the Edmonton Sun.
Lauren, I was deeply embarrassed, but absolutely unsurprised that Toronto City Council is so stupid and such showboats and knew less about this matter than the general public in the audience.
But that's the whole thing, like declaring a climate emergency.
It's not about fixing anything.
It's about swanning for the cameras.
Right, exactly.
And, you know, this is about we are so smart and so concerned that we know what the solution is, even though we have no idea what the problem is.
None.
And, you know, we don't, we have no idea what the controls are like now, but we know we need more controls.
And because we are the most enlightened people who've ever walked the face of the earth and we're progressive, so our hearts are in the right place.
Then you can just trust us that you need more controls.
They're about to go after law-abiding gun owners for another time.
This is like the third or fourth major time since the early 90s with no chance that it's going to improve public safety.
None.
Not one.
Like they're going to, there's the rumor now out of Ottawa is that they're going to ban a rifle called the AR-15 because this has become the cause celeb of people like the chair and the panel in Toronto.
It's a dangerous gun.
It's an assault rifle, you know.
It's very, it is owned by almost 100,000 people in Canada, legally registered, owned by almost 100,000 people in Canada, never once used in a violent crime.
Yeah.
But they're going to ban it because that will solve the gun problem.
No.
The gun problem in Toronto is based on two things, drug trade and gangs.
Now, those probably are one thing put together, but you know what I'm saying.
Either gang-related or drug-related.
And now they're going to go after duck hunters and sports shooters.
I remember in his first election, Mike Harris, who was Premier of Ontario for eight years, said, how come it is that anytime someone's killed in a fern bar in downtown Toronto, and that was a famous murder in Toronto in the 90s, how come it is that sometimes, every time somebody's killed in a fern bar in downtown Toronto, they go after duck hunters in North Bay.
And that's exactly what this mentality is all about.
We're told, too, that Bob Blair, who is the public safety minister now in charge of the gun file, has said that they're just going to ban a whole bunch of guns by order in council, by cabinet decree.
They're not going to debate this in parliament.
They're not going to call witnesses in the committee.
They're not going to ask for amendments.
The cabinet is simply so intelligent, and it's made up of people exactly like that group you saw in Toronto.
They're so intelligent that they can know what we need and just dictate it.
And this, you know, you want to understand why there is frustration with the liberals outside of the greater Toronto area.
This is exactly the example.
Yeah.
You know, it's funny, you mentioned that as far as you can find, not a single violent crime has been committed with an AR-15.
And I have tried to research that myself.
I've even asked John Lott, the firearms scholar, if he had any information.
And I don't think one has ever been used.
And I don't know the gang scene very well, but I follow on Twitter the Toronto Police Operations Twitter feed, which is sort of like listening to the police scanner, but not as exciting.
Every day, another shooting, one, two, three people.
It's just a battlefield.
It's a little bit like Chicago up here.
And I can assure you, they're not using the long arms, the long rifles and shotguns.
It's not anything like Chicago.
It could be worse than we're used to in Canada.
But the south side of Chicago, about a 14-square-block area in the south side of Chicago, will have as many as 3,000 shootings this year.
It's a war zone.
Okay, I won't make the comparison.
But I'm saying that, you know what?
It's bad.
But one of the things we have to keep in mind as Canadians when we're talking about gun control is that even at our worst, we aren't anywhere near what it's like in the United States or South Africa or Russia even.
The Russians have an awful lot of gun violence.
I take your point.
My point is that we shouldn't overstate the problem because that's the fake demand for the fake solution.
I guess what I was driving at is there are violence, there's gun violence quite frequently in Toronto, but it is never with the rifles and the shotguns that they are seeking to go after.
It's a completely different thing.
I guess they just have the same word gun in them, but they don't care because I think they sort of like taunting farmers and ranchers because they like the pushback so they can say to their fancy Toronto and Montreal voters, look, we've antagonized those rednecks.
You hate them.
Well, we must be doing something right.
And look at the reaction.
So we know we were right because they acted in a hostile, hot-headed manner in return.
You and I talked about this one time before.
Wernick's Strategic Misdirection00:07:29
Michael Wernick, who was the clerk of the Privy Council during the Jody Wilson-Raybold SNC Lavalin scandal, once gave this testimony to the House of Commons Justice Committee, was off balance.
He said, I don't know what's happening.
There's a real threat of outbreak of violence and almost like revolution.
And I thought, what is he talking about?
But these guys had thought that the Yellow Vest protests, there were protesters who were driving from Western Canada to Ottawa, were definitely going to try and kidnap the Prime Minister.
Yeah, they thought it was a kidnap.
Here, let's play a quick clip.
Here's Wernick.
Absolutely apropos of nothing.
Just I have no idea what this was, but it was the grossest thing I've ever seen.
And to think this guy was in charge of the internet censorship panel.
Here's a quick clip of Wernick.
I worry about the rising tide of incitements to violence when people use terms like treason and traitor in open discourse.
Those are the words that lead to assassination.
I'm worried that somebody's going to be shot in this country this year during the political campaign.
Now, let me just ask you very quickly about that.
Sorry, before you go on, that's what I'm talking about with this panel in Toronto.
This is uninformed.
It's over the top.
They have no idea what they're talking about.
They don't know how to solve a problem, but boy, they've got solutions and they're going to pile it on the backs of ordinary law-abiding citizens.
And they know who the enemies are.
But let me ask you this, because Wernick's no dummy.
I have a theory that that was a deliberate provocation and a misdirection by Wernick to change the channel, change the subject, make him seem like a guy who was dealing with the weightiest problems in the world.
And, oh my God, stop.
holding me to account.
We've got to worry about armed insurrection from the West.
I think he knew it was fake, but he was deliberately trying to, like an illusionist, make people look elsewhere, misdirect them.
I think you're giving him too much credit.
I don't think that he had that depth of understanding.
I honestly think that there are an awful lot of people who've lived these cloistered urban lives among academics, senior civil servants, and lobbyists, special interest groups, NGOs, who really don't understand anything beyond that sheltered little world.
And they see everyone beyond the boundaries of their life as dangerous threats to civilization.
If they don't stand in the way, the country will descend into chaos.
And I honestly think that they're that delusional.
Yeah.
Now, I think a lot of them are.
If every time they called for a gun ban, if drug gangs in Toronto were to squawk and say, no, that's not right, then I would say, oh, good, it's actually hurting them.
But first of all, drug gangs don't talk to the media.
They don't, you know, they don't use the political democratic process.
And most importantly, they don't care what the law is.
They've decided to break it anyways.
It's by definition the law abiders who are going to be squawking about it.
It's a perfect trick or trap that the liberal, I mean, even though the liberals are so truly clueless, they know the feedback loop.
Law-abiding Western conservatives will squawk, and then that is their proof that they're doing something good, even though the problem is the gangbangers in Toronto.
But let me take you back a week, Lauren.
I have in front of me your column from the Edmonton Sun called UCP Firearms Motion, First Step in Firewall Against Feds Meddling.
And the UCP, of course, is Jason Kenney's Conservative Party, the United Conservative Party.
You had mentioned that you thought Bill Blair and Trudeau would introduce their gun bans just by a cabinet order, ordering council as they're called, just by fiat, no debate, just announce it.
Your article a week ago says that another approach might be for them to authorize cities to do this.
Tell me about that option also.
Well, if they don't want to take the political fire themselves, and I think they probably don't in a minority situation, they could authorize municipalities.
And in fact, they're starting to use the term communities, which is ill-defined and nobody really knows what they're talking about.
But they could authorize municipalities to ban guns or certain types of guns, or maybe all handguns or all automatic rifles or semi-automatic rifles or whatever.
They could choose categories that municipalities could ban if they want to.
The fly in that ointment when it comes to Alberta is that, of course, municipalities all across the country are the creations of their provincial governments.
They don't exist legally without authorization from the provinces.
And so Alberta, what they did a week ago was pass a motion saying we stand with law-abiding firearms owners in Alberta and we encourage or certainly support the legitimate use of firearms, whether for sport or for vermin control, whatever you need.
And we support all that.
And that was a signal that should Ottawa give legal authority to municipalities to create gun bans, Alberta will stand in the way in Alberta.
The municipalities here, Calgary and Edmonton would probably be the only two who'd ask for it.
But they will not be given permission by the provincial government to bring in gun bans.
So that I thought was a very good step.
The other thing the province has been talking about is appointing its own chief firearms officer.
I think that's absolutely crucial because now that the CFOs across the country are appointed by the federal government, the feds pick people who will enforce the firearms laws as Ottawa wants them enforced.
And if the province came in and appointed its own chief firearms officer, that person would be able to say that, you know, our community standards are different.
We don't believe that law-abiding gun owners are the problem in violent crime.
So we are not going to start seizing weapons left and right.
They would be bound by any sort of federal law that you can't change that.
But the interpretation of those laws, the time limits for handing things in, the exemptions for different activities.
For example, you can still get a sidearm license in Alberta or in Canada.
It's not very common.
But if you work in an area where there are a lot of bears, you can apply to the federal government for a sidearms license and you may get one.
Those sorts of things have been devolved to the provincial firearms officers who Ottawa can count on because they're loyal appointees of the federal government.
Alberta could easily appoint someone and say, no, you know, we're not going to tell the police to rush onto everyone's property who's used a firearm in self-defense against midnight robbers on their farm and seize all their firearms.
We're just not going to do that.
We'll let the legal process play out, and that would be very different from what the federal CFOs are doing in all the other provinces.
So there are some good steps being taken here to try and shield us from the insanity of that panel in Toronto and the people in Ottawa who think exactly the same way.
Yeah.
Fight the Ruse00:04:31
You know, during the election, our friend David Menzies went to Bill Blair's house to ask him, why aren't you living in the neighborhood that you're running?
He lives in one of the fanciest neighborhoods in Toronto, but he represents a riding with a much higher crime rate.
And David tried to ask if that's why he wasn't living there.
Here's a quick clip of that.
Yeah, is this not the home of Bill Blair?
Why would you want to know who lives here?
Okay, my name is David Menzies with Rebel Media, and we were doing a story about why Mr. Blair doesn't live in the riding that he's running in.
Well, I think when you can find Mr. Blair and find out where he lives, you can ask Mr. Blair that yourself.
This is not his house, Ed?
I'm not going to say whether it is or not.
I'd like you to get off my property.
I had a neighbor come and knock on my door and tell me someone was standing across the street taking photos of my home, so I'd like you to leave my property.
Okay, well, that's precisely why I asked if it was okay to come on your property, but I'll walk off.
I don't know.
I think that this whole thing is a ruse.
I don't think that it's actually going to fix the problem.
I think maybe they're choosing to focus on firearms instead of global warming because maybe that's going to backfire as our economy slows down.
I don't know.
I think this whole thing is such a bad faith adventure by Justin Trudeau.
I don't think it's a real solution to a real problem.
There are other people.
They care about real solutions.
They care about virtue signaling.
And they're signaling that like that panel in Toronto, they are more virtuous than the rest of us because they care and they're prepared to do something dramatic to solve the problem.
Doesn't matter that none of the science or the statistics or any of the evidence supports what they're doing.
They're showing that they care.
And for progressives, that more than anything else is the goal.
Just to prove that they are morally superior to everyone else.
They care and they are prepared to take bold words.
You know, I think that's all it is.
I don't give them any depth of intellect.
I don't describe to them any nasty, hidden agenda, because I just don't think they think that deeply.
I really don't.
Yeah, I think you're right.
Well, we'll see what happens.
I remember the big fight 25 years ago to license the National Firearms Registry, and I know that not only did it agitate the West, but it cost a significant number of rural liberals their seats.
I wonder if Justin Trudeau will go down that same path.
Lauren Grant, it's great to catch up with you.
You bet.
All right.
Thanks, my friend.
Stay with us.
more ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back.
What do you think about this study from GLAAD that shows a cratering of support for LGBT amongst millennials?
I think it's the T.
I think most people are live and let live, libertarian, don't tread on me, mind your own business, just don't bug me and I won't bug you.
I won't ask you about your sex life.
You don't ask me.
I think that's the vibe for millennials and Generation Z Zoomers.
But that's not what the trans agenda is about.
That's not a leave me alone.
That's let me change your world.
Let me compete against girls in sports.
Let me change in girls' change rooms.
I think that's a whole different thing.
And if GLAAD is detecting the backlash, oh, I think it's big and I think it's very real.
I think that there's room to respect and protect or at least tolerate people who say they're something that's different than how they were born.
I would say do no harm.
Don't pick on anyone.
Don't punish anyone.
Don't be mean to anyone.
Anyone who, until just a few years ago, would have been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition.
It was a mental illness to call yourself trans just until a few years ago.
Don't pick on these people.
Don't fight with them.
Don't be mean to them.
But what's happened now is the Jonathan Yaneves of the world are forcing themselves into change rooms onto aestheticians saying, wax this.
Yeah, it does not surprise me that support is falling.
And if I was an L or a G in the LGBT, I'd be worried about that.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, good night.