You Hang In There!

Summary

Armstrong & Getty On Demand

Episode Title: You Hang In There!
Date: January 14, 2026
Host(s): Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, Katie Green
Podcast Network: iHeartPodcasts

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on timely debates over gender and legal definitions surrounding the Supreme Court’s oral arguments pertaining to transgender participation in sports, and broader cultural disputes about gender identity in America. Jack and Joe dissect the legal, social, and sometimes absurd dimensions of “What is a man or woman?” while lampooning political reactions, social trends, and media coverage. They also briefly check in on global politics (notably Iran), the NFL, bug-eating influencers, and headlines both serious and bizarre.

---

Main Topics & Discussion Points

1. General Manager of the Day: “Girls, girls, girls…”

• Theme Introduction ([00:47])
  • Joe names “girls, girls, girls” (i.e., women and the topic of gender) as the general manager, linking it to the Supreme Court's oral arguments about gender definition and sports.
  • The duo previews a humorous but pointed discussion about gender, biological sex, and legal confusion.

---

2. Trump Flipping Off Heckler at Ford Plant

• Incident Recap ([01:27-02:25])

  • Trump flips off an Epstein conspiracy theorist heckler while touring a Ford plant.
  • Joe and Jack express amusement and note the odd priority of the heckler (Epstein over more current issues like the economy or Iran).
  • “The fact that the guy... he's like an Epstein fanatic. What the hell?” – Joe ([01:43])

• Commentary on Public Behavior

  • Comparing Trump’s public gestures to behind-the-scenes antics of past presidents (e.g., LBJ).

---

3. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Gender, Sports, and Law

• Core Issues ([02:57-10:05])

  • Supreme Court examines whether there are legally and scientifically two sexes and how that applies to sports.
  • The hosts expect the decision to “almost certainly go the right way.”
  • Judicial thoroughness highlighted: “It sounds like skepticism, but it’s just care.” – Joe ([03:23])
  • Joe credits Elena Kagan’s intellect, even while disagreeing with her, for recognizing practical limitations:
    • “[Kagan] seemed to realize that you can’t... carve out a subsection of women, i.e. dudes who claim to be women... ” ([03:46])
  • Anticipation that the ruling will have broader ramifications, possibly culturally legitimizing mainstream acknowledgment of biological sex.

• Societal Changes & Cultural Commentary

  • Extrapolation on how quickly gender norms and policies have shifted in a decade.
  • Katie Green hopes someday she’ll tell her son about these confusing times, amazed it ever happened ([07:04]).
  • Jack: “I hope some great books or documentaries are made... how something can catch on and then culturally get deemed by enough of the elite to be... X, even though a majority of people think Y.” ([07:55])

• Identity Politics & Medicalization

  • Joe: “You be you. ... The other side says we need to carve you up surgically and feed you powerful experimental chemistries. ... And I’m the bigot?” ([08:28])

---

4. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Memorable Sound Bites & Analysis

a. Defining 'Man' and 'Woman' in Law

• Key Exchange ([09:31-10:21]):
  • Justice (presumably Alito): “What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?”
  • Attorney: “We do not have a definition for the court.”
  • Joe (mocking): “Yeah, yeah, I do. You need one? Can I step in?” ([09:51])
• Hosts’ Sarcastic Solution:
  • Jack: “So one word definition. Vajayjay.” – Jack ([10:21])

b. The Insidious Simplicity of Truth vs. Complexity of Dishonesty

• Joe: “There are some ideas so idiotic ... only an intellectual could hold them.” ([25:01])
• On the evasiveness of legal arguments when basic questions are unanswerable.

c. Detailed Analysis of Legal Scrutiny & Trans Issues

• Clips and Recap ([19:27-28:55])
  • Complexities in classifying gender for sports; moving goalposts in legal definitions.
  • Attorney points out that the “carving” of exceptions for trans athletes is endless and burdensome.
    • “If you can define the class so precisely, you’re going to force the state to define the class that precisely... it’s enormously burdensome for everyone.” – Attorney ([27:00])

---

5. Broader Social Comments and Reflection

• The group muses on how quickly cultural norms shift and the role of fear and job security in silencing dissent.
• Reference to events following the George Floyd protests and how the window of permitted topics narrowed.
• “You’ll have to tell them: well, they were afraid to argue against those people because they were really, really mean.” – Joe ([07:18])

---

6. News Roundup with Katie Green

Headlines Covered ([13:09-14:36])

• Greenland: Speculation about U.S. buying it, with new headlines and Trump quotes.
• Iran: Trump threatens intervention if protesters are killed; Iranian regime vows public hangings.
  • “And the mullahs are vowing to hang people in the streets. In public starting this morning or last night.” – Jack ([11:28])
• China: Record trade surplus as exports boom.
• NFL: San Francisco 49ers as an “injury miracle” team.
• Viral Bizarre Story: Influencer loving to eat 100 bugs a day.

---

7. Further Noteworthy Quotes & Banter

• On the speed and violence difference in boys' and girls' sports:

  • “The speed and violence of the boys and how much faster and more violent it is than the girls emerges at a very young age. ... Pre-puberty.” – Joe ([31:12])

• On cultural sea change:

  • “It would be so crazy... to go back in time, ask about this, and have them say, ‘what?’ ...You wouldn’t have to go back far...” – Jack ([05:54])

• On "Help is on the way" to Iran:

  • “Does that mean bombs dropping out of planes or... help get your internet going...?” – Jack ([31:28])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Supreme Court gender arguments preview: [00:47]-[07:00]
• Trump flips off heckler: [01:27]-[02:25]
• Katie Green reflects on the era: [07:04]-[07:14]
• Societal/cultural change musings: [07:55]-[08:28]
• Defining man/woman in law (Alito, attorney Q&A): [09:31]-[10:21], [23:10]-[24:37]
• Attorney explains ‘carving’ class problem: [27:00]-[28:18]
• Iranian protests & U.S. response: [10:33]-[12:27]
• News Headlines with Katie Green: [13:09]-[16:41]
• Trans sports oral argument audio clips & analysis: [19:27]-[28:55]
• Discussion on boys vs. girls sports: [30:33]-[31:18]

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• Joe on cultural permission and truth:

  • "It will give permission ... for many people ... to say, you know, there's men and there's women. And that's just a simple fact which for some reason has gone out of fashion in the last 10 completely effing insane years." ([04:47])

• Jack on the oddity of rapid change:

  • “No, nobody made rules for this 10 years ago because we didn’t think we had to.” ([05:32])

• Joe on trans medicalization:

  • “The other side says we need to carve you up surgically and feed you powerful experimental chemistries... And I’m the bigot in this.” ([08:28])

• Supreme Court Oral Argument

  • Justice: “What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?” ([09:31]/[23:27])
  • Attorney: “We do not have a definition for the court.” ([09:51]/[23:35])

• Joe/Jack on lawyerly evasions:

  • “The humuna, humuna doctrine... if you get asked a question and you have to go (makes gibberish), you should lose.” ([24:55])

• Attorney on the endless carving debate:

  • “…If you can define the class so precisely, you’re going to force the state to define the class that precisely, it's going to be enormously burdensome for everyone.” ([27:10])

• Jack on wishing for faster Supreme Court action:

  • “They should get it out soon because high school sports are going on... people are being shoved off podiums and losing state records…” ([29:18])

---

Tone & Style

• Language/Tone:
  Blunt, sarcastic, and irreverent with moments of genuine frustration over legal, social, and media absurdities.
• Style:
  Rapid-fire banter, frequent interruptions, and a rhythm of combining serious issues with offbeat or comedic asides.

---

Final Thoughts / Summary

This episode of Armstrong & Getty On Demand grapples with perhaps the defining legal and cultural battle of the era: the tension between traditional definitions of gender and the drive for inclusion of transgender people, as seen through the prism of the Supreme Court. The hosts mix in trenchant legal analysis, cultural reflection, and their signature irreverent humor, capturing the confusion, exasperation, and incredulity that many Americans feel around rapidly shifting rules and taboos. The episode is punctuated with notable soundbites from both the Supreme Court and the podcast’s hosts, and remains highly relevant for listeners wanting a snapshot of the current climate as well as the legal, political, and cultural storms brewing around gender and identity.

---

Transcript

[Podcast Announcer]

This is an iHeart podcast, guaranteed human.

[Joe Getty]

Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln radio studio at the George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Armstrong and Getty. And now here, Armstrong.

[Jack Armstrong]

Live from Studio C. Si, senor. It is a dimly lit room deep within the bowels of the Armstrong and Getty Communications compound. Midweek and today, we're under the tutelage of our general manager.

[Joe Getty]

Girls, girls, girls. It's a thing. Women, females, it's a thing. A specific thing. Always has been, always will be. Forever and ever. Amen. Yeah.

[Jack Armstrong]

And you're basing this on the Supreme Court oral arguments from yesterday, I'm guessing.

[Joe Getty]

I am indeed. Ironically, the oral arguments were somewhat to genital arguments as well.

[Jack Armstrong]

But anyway, what said to you.

[Joe Getty]

I'm the. I'm your legal reporter and I bring it to you. Oh, I almost said something really straight. I bring it to you straight. The facts, sir. The facts.

[Jack Armstrong]

For some reason, I don't know why this just popped into my head, because this is what we were talking about. Trump flipping off that guy yesterday.

[Joe Getty]

I don't know why. They just popped a few.

[Jack Armstrong]

Bang, middle finger. Nice.

[Joe Getty]

Well, and the guy, the fact that the guy. You know, all the things you could be yelling at Trump about. The guy's like an Epstein fanatic.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, yeah.

[Joe Getty]

What the hell? Not the Minnesota thing. Not the Fed, not the law fair, not Maduro, not Iran. No, it's freaking Epstein.

[Jack Armstrong]

If you don't know. We're talking about Trump, not the economy. Trump was touring the Ford plant and some guy was heckling him and yelling at him. You're a pedophile protector. I guess.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah.

[Jack Armstrong]

And Trump said and flipped him off, which is a heck of a thing.

[Joe Getty]

But they're in public. Yeah, yeah, right. I mean, it's the sort of thing that like, LBJ would have done behind the scenes and we would still be giggling about it today as. As tape has been found of LBJ saying F you to a protester.

[Jack Armstrong]

Now, some of you who are into the Epstein story, I've already seen this commentary. That man, that really got under his skin, didn't it? In a way that other things might not.

[Joe Getty]

Okay, the whole Epstein thing. So you hang in there. You hang in there.

[Jack Armstrong]

You hang in there. We're gonna get into playing some of the clips from the oral arguments from the Supreme Court taken up. Finally, the topic of is there such things as boys and girls and should girls participate in boys or should boys be in girls sports and blah, blah, blah, all that sort of stuff that we should have probably settled several Years ago. What's your takeaway from reading a lot about this and listening to it? Where do you think the Supreme Court is on this?

[Joe Getty]

It's almost certainly going to go the right way. It's. You got, you know, it's a cliche at this point. You can't leap to too many judgments for the reasons we've discussed many times. Sometimes they will ask tough questions of the person they agree with to make sure their argument is solid. And it sounds like skepticism, but it's just care.

[Jack Armstrong]

It's just thoroughness.

[Joe Getty]

But having said that, even like Elena Kagan, who I said kjb, kbj JPK is a. Is a DEI hire or something yesterday. Elena Kagan is brilliant. She is a brilliant legal mind. I mean, just amazing. I disagree with her a lot, but boy, is she smart even. She seemed to. And we'll play the relevant audio later on, but she seemed to realize that you can't like, carve out a subsection of women, I.e. dudes who claim to be women and took lots of hormones and maybe puberty blockers to the point that blank, blank, blank, according to science. Zada, Zada, Zada. And they get to be honorary women. It's just unworkable.

[Jack Armstrong]

Do you think it's going to have greater ramifications around the whole trans issue than just the idea of boys and girls sports in high school?

[Joe Getty]

I. Yes. Although, boy, the supes are good at narrowing the effects of their decisions when they want to. I don't understand how it couldn't have a wider effect, but, you know, it remains to be seen. I mean, look, you know what I think, Jack, the big effect is? And it's a shame that this is true, but I think it's true. It will give permission to many, many people, people of authority and just average people to say, you know, there's men and there's women. And that's just a simple fact which for some reason has gone out of fashion in the last 10 completely effing insane years.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, it's like the Ricky Gervais thing. And I don't remember what his premise is, but it's something about, you know, no, nobody made rules for this 10 years ago because we didn't think we had to.

[Joe Getty]

Well, right. It was. It was absurd. It would be absurd to even bring it up, which, you know, the Neo Marxists exploit. But that's discussion for another moment.

[Jack Armstrong]

Gotta be so crazy. If you could have a time machine to be able to go back in time and, and like, ask somebody a question about this and have them say what? I mean, he wouldn't have to go back far either. Like when Barack Obama was president.

[Joe Getty]

Right.

[Jack Armstrong]

You asked some people about this stuff and they would say, what are you talking about?

[Joe Getty]

We're thinking of putting a rapist in a women's prison because now he wears a wig. Wait, no.

[Jack Armstrong]

You don't even know to go that far down the line. Just because this happened to me at the restaurant last night. Just. We're going to start. We're going to change all the restaurant restrooms at this restaurant to be multi gender. Boys and girls neither. Yeah, we're going to, we're going to put on there gender neutral.

[Joe Getty]

What? Sorry, ladies, welcome to pee on the floor.

[Jack Armstrong]

And you'd say, what? I've never been to a restaurant that had gender neutral bathrooms.

[Joe Getty]

What's that all about?

[Jack Armstrong]

I mean, it would be such a conversation.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah, yeah. Why are you doing that? I can't imagine why, Katie. I've never seen so much eye rolling, hand in head, forehead slapping in the introductory segment before. Are you all right?

[Katie Green]

Yeah, I'm just praying that in the future I can tell my son, son, you're never gonna guess what we lived through. And he's gonna be shocked that all of this happened because hopefully it's over.

[Jack Armstrong]

Boy, listen to the bigot already determining the gender for the child.

[Joe Getty]

Wow, that was beautiful. Right, right. Well, and, and he'll say, but why did people go along with it? You'll have to tell them. Well, they were afraid to, to argue against those people because they were really, really mean. And because a big guy who was a drug addict fighting the cops, got suffocated in Minneapolis, had a heart attack or whatever. Nobody could argue with anything the extreme left said. And he thinks, what the hell? And he'd go out and play ball. Yeah.

[Katie Green]

It's gonna be a long story, kid.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. I, I hope some great books or documentaries are made just on the. The bigger question of how something can catch on and then culturally get deemed by enough of the elite to be, you know, X.

[Joe Getty]

Right.

[Jack Armstrong]

Even though a majority of people think why. But X wins the day for a while. Just out of fear of losing your job.

[Joe Getty]

Right. In spite of the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Yeah.

[Jack Armstrong]

And common sense.

[Joe Getty]

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. So true. You know, I will make this my final comment. And it, I wish it were more widely said. Understood, retweeted something. But what are you going to do? You're an effeminate male or a butch female, Maybe you're gay, whatever. Maybe you don't know which way you swing. You don't swing at all. Whatever I, a conservative, say, hey, you be you. You're exactly the way you're supposed to be. Enjoy your life. Be happy. The other side says we need to carve you up surgically and feed you powerful experimental chemistries, chemicals, rather. And I'm the bigot in this.

[Jack Armstrong]

So we got a good Supreme Court clip. So let's, let's start the show officially. I'm Jack Armstrong. He's Joe Getty on this. How did it already get to be Wednesday? Hump day, January 14th, the year 2026, where Armstrong and Getting. We approve of this program.

[Joe Getty]

All right, Men, women, neither, both. Let's begin the show officially. According FCC rules, regs at mark for equal protection purposes.

[Supreme Court Justice (possibly Justice Alito)]

What does, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?

[Podcast Announcer]

I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law would have to, we'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the court.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah, yeah, I do. You need one? Can I step in?

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. So the question was if you, how are, how are we having a discussion about men and women if you're claiming there's no such thing as men or women?

[Joe Getty]

Yeah, well, we don't have a definition, folks. And not only was this stuff taken seriously, you didn't dare speak against it for a cup of coffee.

[Jack Armstrong]

So one year, one word definition. Vajayjay.

[Joe Getty]

Well, I would go with, oh, Varvara.

[Jack Armstrong]

Should probably touch on my kids. And I got kind of worked up about this yesterday as playing some clips as we're driving around some news clips. This next 24 hours or 48 hours in Iran is a really big deal. Might already be too late. And Trump is vowing that he's not going to let the, the, the, the, the bad guys, the mullahs, the ayatollah get out of hand. But it's already out of hand. And so, I mean, if, if our standard is you can't kill protesters, CBS was reporting. I thought it was interesting. All the other networks were going with the lower numbers of how many protesters have been killed. Thousand, two thousand, wherever. CBS said 12,000. Maybe as high as 20.

[Joe Getty]

Right.

[Jack Armstrong]

And if they killed 20,000 protesters, I don't know what your standard is President Trump for if they start killing protesters.

[Joe Getty]

But 20,000 sounds like a lot.

[Jack Armstrong]

And the mullahs are vowing to hang people in the streets. In public starting this morning or last night.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah. The head of the Justice Department over there is vowed swift trials like today hanging people yesterday tried today hanged tonight.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. And hung by the, by the dozens, probably hundreds. And Trump says no. So where that leaves things, I don't know. We'll check in on that story in a little bit, too. We've got Katie's headlines on the way. You can text us 415295, KFTC.

[Joe Getty]

Armstrong and Getty.

[Jack Armstrong]

I mean, Trump yesterday said, hey, to the people of Iran, you know, keep the name of your abusers because they're gonna pay a price when this is over. Like, you know, clearly the revolution is gonna be successful and we're on the way to help. You can't say stuff like that and not get involved, can you?

[Joe Getty]

I wouldn't think so. Help is on the way. Come on. Well, you got to do something, right? I would think.

[Jack Armstrong]

I don't know what that something's going to be, though.

[Joe Getty]

Oh, there's so much going on. I was remarking during the break to our brethren here on the show that I wish I was wearing my F Y Olican party T shirt because I've never felt more like that. Both sides are making me insane. But what are you gonna do? I think there are a lot of.

[Jack Armstrong]

Feel the same way you're with half of America is a decline to state a party.

[Joe Getty]

Oh, at least. Well, I'll go ahead and state a party. But I think that that sentiment of, yeah, I'm a Republican, but yeah, I'm a Democrat, but it's stronger than it's been for a very long time. Anyway, a lot to talk about. Let's figure out who's reporting what. It's lead story with Katie Green. Katie.

[Jack Armstrong]

Right.

[Katie Green]

All the Alphabet networks are talking about Greenland. So let's start with those. ABC analysts say US Talks pose conundrum for Greenland and Denmark. NBC buying Greenland could cost as much as $700 billion. And CNN, Trump says, quote, anything less than U.S. control of Greenland is unacceptable.

[Jack Armstrong]

When I hear people talk about buying Greenland, which has been discussed seriously, does that mean they become a state then?

[Joe Getty]

If we buy Greenland, territory, protectorate, there are all sorts of legal classifications I only half understand.

[Katie Green]

From the Washington Post. Trump hints at Iran decision as advisors meet to prepare strike options.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, I was watching that interview with Trump on CBS last night with Tony, what's his name? And Tony what's his name said, did you hear they're going to start hanging people?

[Joe Getty]

And Trump said, what?

[Jack Armstrong]

No, I did not hear that. But if they do that, you know.

[Joe Getty]

Oh, boy. Oh, boy. Where does he get his info? I don't know.

[Jack Armstrong]

I don't know.

[Joe Getty]

There was something else I was going to say about that. What?

[Jack Armstrong]

Oh.

[Joe Getty]

Our brave allies and friends in the Gulf, the Saudis, the Qataris, the UAE are all saying, hey, don't, don't, don't hate Iran because that might screw up the oil shipments and. Hang on. All those people. What are you going to do? We don't. We don't want our people to be mad that we helped you out, so let's. Let's let the mullahs keep their. Their jobs. Thanks, Saudis.

[Katie Green]

From the New York Times. China announces record trade surplus as its export exports flood world markets.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah. Yeah. They're doing their. Their dumping of cheap Chinese crap on Europe now. In the rest of the world, enjoy the crap. Yeah.

[Katie Green]

From the Wall Street Journal. They've suffered a crushing run of injuries. They could win the Super Bowl. Anyway. Talking about the Niners.

[Joe Getty]

What?

[Jack Armstrong]

The Wall Street Journal is picking the Niners?

[Attorney or Legal Expert]

Yeah.

[Joe Getty]

Well, no, they're talking about how they've had more games lost to injury than any other teams, and anybody who's anywhere close won a total of eight games. The two teams that were close to them and the other playoff teams are on the other end. They've had the least injuries, and so the 49ers are like a miracle story of just finding guys on the street off waivers, retired, whatever.

[Jack Armstrong]

I agree with that.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah.

[Jack Armstrong]

It reaches its logical conclusion at some point, though.

[Katie Green]

From the New York Post. I eat up to 100 live bugs a day. I love being the master of their destiny. And how they massage my tongue.

[Joe Getty]

Well, there's somebody who's just gonna be a serial killer as soon as he gets around to it.

[Jack Armstrong]

Who's up with eating bugs?

[Katie Green]

Oh, it's this influencer guy.

[Jack Armstrong]

Good friend.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah.

[Jack Armstrong]

Eat your bugs.

[Joe Getty]

Get your clicks.

[Jack Armstrong]

Weirdo.

[Joe Getty]

He.

[Katie Green]

He's from. His name's Carlos. He loves mealworms.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. Yeah. I'll tell you what, if I gotta eat bugs, far down the list of bugs I'm getting to is any kind of worm.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah. In his defense, the word meal is right in there.

[Katie Green]

Study finds. What if your skin could warn you about disease before symptoms appearing by glowing green?

[Joe Getty]

Okay.

[Katie Green]

Scientists apparently have developed, like, a living skin that they can graft onto you that glows green when it detects inflammation.

[Jack Armstrong]

Wow, that's cool.

[Joe Getty]

It's like the swords that glowed blue in the. The Lord of the Rings when the orcs were nearby.

[Jack Armstrong]

All right, nerd.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah, guilty.

[Katie Green]

Jack said it, so I didn't have to thank you.

[Joe Getty]

Guilty.

[Katie Green]

And finally, the Babylon Be US offers to trade its liberal women for Iranian women.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, man. The Iranian women. Brave, brave, cool women trying to stand up for some sort of freedom. And a bunch of them might get hung in the street today.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah. Getting beat down in the street as opposed to. Well, you've seen what happens on our streets. Yeah.

[Jack Armstrong]

We got more news of the day. We'll get into the Supreme Court oral arguments, among other things. If you missed a segment, get the podcast. Armstrong and Getty on demand.

[Joe Getty]

Armstrong and Getty.

[Jack Armstrong]

I'm at that point of the year that between college football and NFL football, I gotta get sucked into this idea that every day practically, there's an exciting game to watch. And then when there's not one, it almost seems weird, you know?

[Joe Getty]

Oh, it's such a letdown. Yeah, it is. Oh, everybody knows like the month or two after the super bowl is just a sports wasteland. Unless you're big NBA fan, I guess. But yeah. Anyway, so yesterday at the Supreme Court, they had oral arguments for a couple of transgender related cases. And without getting into kind of the. The real details of the differences between the cases and the questions being asked, it was. It was a really good chance for the Supreme Court to take a look at the idea that you have women's private spaces, spaces including sports leagues, bathrooms, whatever they're set aside for women. The laws of the United States have always recognized that there are men and there are women. And Title nine, which was really, really important for sports especially, and just women's programs in general at universities and in education, said, there's men, there's women, and in recent years, there's men who say, yeah, I feel like a woman, so I'm a woman. And have demanded access to those spaces. I think we've all followed that pretty well. And so finally, the Supreme Court has taken on a couple of cases that really kind of get to the heart of that. And the oral arguments were super interesting yesterday. And it was just as a quick aside, there's a lot of stuff that's quite lawyerly in the oral arguments because they're figuring out not should dudes be able to go to bathroom and women's bathrooms? It's not like that. It's all about strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny and just stuff. And it gets complicated. I think it is almost handy that I'm not actually an attorney because I understand what a lot of that stuff means, but my head gets bogged down and it just Does.

[Jack Armstrong]

So I don't understand what it means. I don't know why you just can't yell at the Supreme Court. There's a dude in the women's bathroom.

[Joe Getty]

And then they settle it. Yeah, that's. I'm in, actually, in favor of that. Strict scrutiny. But anyway, so I want to play a handful of clips from the oral arguments yesterday that really kind of caught people's attention, or certainly should have. The first one I want to play is 55 Michael. This got a lot of attention. It's KBJ who. Who infamously, horrifyingly, Puke Worthingly uses the term cisgender girls in the Supreme Court as if we all agree that that is even a thing. No, that's the radical activists who introduced that whole term to us. I won't use it and you shouldn't either. Anyway, here's KBJ and one of the attorn.

[Katie Green]

You have the overarching classification.

[Joe Getty]

You know, everybody has to be.

[Katie Green]

Play.

[Joe Getty]

On the team that is the same as their sex at birth.

[Katie Green]

But then you have a gender identity.

[Joe Getty]

Definition that is operating within that meaning a distinction. Meaning that for cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity.

[Jack Armstrong]

For transgender girls, they can't.

[Attorney or Legal Expert]

So I think that.

[Joe Getty]

Okay, you're.

[Attorney or Legal Expert]

As to the part about your ability to pass over from boy to girl, yes, you can go from one way, but not the other. I want to be clear that BBJ is not challenging that specific classification. I think that's important to start with, but I think if anything that's, you.

[Joe Getty]

Know, we can bail here. Actually, just to shorten it a little bit, he. I could hear. I'm a bit of a mind reader. I could hear in the guy's voice. That's not a friggin thing. The idea that cisgender girls get to play in their gender preference sport, but trans girls don't get too. So that's discrimination. And the guy, you know, mentally rolled his eyes and thought, oh, for God's sake.

[Jack Armstrong]

All right, so what I was thinking when I heard that was okay, your honor, or there are other justice. Clearly we have to nail down whether or not this is a thing or not, because.

[Joe Getty]

Right.

[Jack Armstrong]

She just presented it as if it is.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah, right. Exactly. Yeah. And, and look, here's. Here's the thing to know about kbj. She is of the belief, and I'm, I'm as certain as I can be of this, this, you know, statement. She is of the belief that the laws of the United States of America and the Constitution are a manifestation of white supremacy and are stacked against the oppressed. Therefore, her mission as a supreme court justice is not to interpret the law and interpret the constitution and come to an impartial decision based on serious analysis. Her job, as she ceases, is to get the right result. And so, you know, she's gonna be on the short end of a hell of a lot of sticks because the other justices, including at least one of the liberal types, are very serious about their jobs in a way that she isn't. Anyway, this got a lot of attention. We played you just a little bit of it. 52. This is Justice Alito. May God grant him long, long, long, long life, talking to one of the other attorneys for the bad guys.

[Supreme Court Justice (possibly Justice Alito)]

Well, to pick up on the issue of discrimination on the basis of transgender status. Let me just go back to. Let me go to some basics. Do you agree that a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls?

[Podcast Announcer]

Yes, your honor.

[Supreme Court Justice (possibly Justice Alito)]

If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the equal protection clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?

[Podcast Announcer]

Yes, your honor.

[Supreme Court Justice (possibly Justice Alito)]

And what is that definition for equal protection purposes? What does. What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?

[Podcast Announcer]

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, the. Would have to. We'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was just understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the court, and we don't take issue with the. We're not disputing the definition here. What we're saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams and that there's a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn't make sense to do so according to the state's own interest.

[Supreme Court Justice (possibly Justice Alito)]

Well, how can you. How can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?

[Podcast Announcer]

I think here we just know that we. We basically know that the. That they've identified pursuant to their own statute. Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being excluded categorically from the women's teams as the statute. So we're taking the statute's definitions as we find them, and we don't dispute them. We're just trying to figure out, do they create an equal protection problem.

[Joe Getty]

One of the smartest, most capable attorneys in America, indeed, in the world, posed with the well, how are we supposed to judge this if we don't even define what a man or woman is responds with, you know, that's known as.

[Jack Armstrong]

The humuna, humuna doctrine, Right. If you get asked a question and you have to go, you should lose.

[Joe Getty]

Right? Yeah, exactly. Just. It's because when you get it down to the very basics, the question is unanswerable. There's no adequate answer. It's silly. Which gets to one of my favorite Thomas Sowell quotes, one of many I admire, where he said, there are some ideas so idiotic, so foolish, only an intellectual could hold them. And he also has some great quotes about how the truth is often very, very simple. It's in dishonesty that the complexity starts. And when you reduce the question to its essence, like Justice Alito did to that very capable, very smart attorney, she couldn't answer it. You have to dress it up in the double speak of radical gender theory to offer any credible answer. And then one more clip. I really like this one. And I'm sorry, I don't recall which attorney this was. It was for one of the states. He was in a conversation with Elena Kagan, who is, unlike kbj, I think, very serious about her job and extremely capable, although I disagree with her a lot. And she was, they were jawing about. You have a class of people, can be black people, can be blind people, can be men or women.

[Jack Armstrong]

How about mountain climbers who are gay? I mean, blind.

[Joe Getty]

No. Which one is it? Anyway, so you have a class of people meaning a woman. And the other side is attempting to say, when you apply the law and apply that class, there are some people, like these transgender people who are a dude. Yes. But they, they're weak and they're womanly. And so they, the class shouldn't apply to them. And this attorney is responding to that notion to my mind, quite brilliantly, because she asks him, if we allowed that, what would that look like in 50. Michael?

[Attorney or Legal Expert]

I'm having trouble coming up with what it could look like because it will always be possible to carve the class down further.

[Joe Getty]

Right.

[Attorney or Legal Expert]

I mean, so if they say that their class, that they're their subclass, I guess subclass of males is males who identify as transgender, then we would come back and say, well, only something like 10% of males who identify as transgender take the testosterone suppression. And then they might say, well, okay, no, the class is Just the males who take the testosterone suppression. And then we might come back and say, well, according to the record, according to their own expert of males who take testosterone suppression, only one quarter of them are able to achieve the appropriate, you know, like to able to achieve ordinary levels of testosterone for women. And the other three quarters would still have an advantage, and therefore we'd be justified. 75% pretty good fit. An intermediate scrutiny, and we'd be justified with the law. But then they can just change the class again. They can say, aha. No, our class is males who identify as transgender who suppress their testosterone and who suppress their testosterone successfully and are able to get it down to where they don't have a competitive advantage. And at that point, we can say, if you can define the class so precisely, you're going to force the state to define the class that precisely, it's going to be enormously burdensome for everyone. And the state can never win because whenever the state points to the fit in the statute, they just redefine their class as only the people who are outside the fit. Thank you.

[Joe Getty]

There you go. There you go. It never ends. All right, how about a transgender person who successfully suppressed their hormones to the female level and is very weedy and effeminate, but has a skeleton of bone size and density that's much closer to the male median than the female median. All right, well, then our new class is transgender. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Whose bones are blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They should be allowed to participate in girls sports. Are you blanking kidding me? And Justice Kagan said. Yeah, thank you.

[Jack Armstrong]

So I've heard. I've heard most people say that this is going to be one of those rulings that probably comes out in June at the end. I wish it wouldn't. I mean, if they. If there's anything like unanimous, all of them agreeing, they should get it out soon because high school sports are going on. You know, lots of them are going on this spring.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah. People are being shoved off podiums and losing state records and yeah, that ruling right away.

[Jack Armstrong]

If they. If they, you know, have a pretty clear consensus.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah. Could there be some sort of preliminary injunction? I'm out of my depth now as a non lawyer. Hey, a word from our friends at Prize picks. Holy crappings. Is the football action, exciting basketball moving toward the playoffs? And if you enjoy fantasy sports but don't want to, like, draft a team at the beginning of the year and just live with it, you can play fantasy sports every week with prize picks.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. They now have early payouts. By the way, if your player gets off to a hot start, you might have the option to cash out those winnings before the game even finishes. That's something they can do on price picks, one of the many reasons it's cool. Download the app today and it's super simple.

[Joe Getty]

All you do is pick more or less on at least two player stat projections and go from there. You can your team quote unquote could be a basketball player and a football player or or more players if you want. Depends how you want to go it. And there's all sorts of flexibility the way you want to play. It's easy to understand. Download the Prize Picks app today. Use the code Armstrong to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That code again is ARM Strong to get 50 bucks in lineups to play around with after you play just a $5 lineup. Prize picks it's good to be right.

[Jack Armstrong]

I observed some high school basketball just last night as my son plays the drums in the the pep band thingy and the girls high school basketball and the boys high school basketball and it's a different thing. I mean with rare exceptions, are you going to have a girl that could hang with the guys?

[Joe Getty]

Yeah. Well. And as I always go back to having coached sports for years and years and years, including the fairly little kids, the speed and violence of the boys and how much faster and more violent it is than the girls emerges at a very young age. Very young. Pre certainly pre puberty. 100% pre puberty.

[Jack Armstrong]

They ought to bring in Serena Williams and let her say I'd lose in straight sets to whoever she was talking about.

[Joe Getty]

Number 125 player, whatever it was. Yeah, yeah.

[Jack Armstrong]

Okay, we got Mailbag on the way. Lots of news today. Stay with us.

[Joe Getty]

Armstrong and Getty.

[Jack Armstrong]

One of the questions of the day, what does help is on the way mean? Because that's what Trump truthed out yesterday to the people of Iran. Does that mean bombs dropping out of planes or does that mean we'll help get your Internet going or I don't.

[Joe Getty]

Know what that means or just some good moral support. You get them right, Jack. Next hour I hope to get to an email from a listener who's more angry at me than perhaps any listener has ever been in the history of the show. Well, that's the topic matter will shock you. Okay, stay with us. Here's your freedom hating quote of the day. Quoting dictators and cruel despots throughout history and how they view the world. It's kind of useful as the flip side the of of freedom finishing up our series of Vladimir Lenin who said a lie told often enough becomes the truth. And give me just one generation of youth and I'll transform the whole world. Chilling this. It is of course much easier to shout abuse and howl than to attempt to relate to explain. That's true, boy Mailbag.

[Jack Armstrong]

Sometimes you get exasperated as a parent. You go with that because I said so.

[Joe Getty]

Dad, you're just howling at me.

[Jack Armstrong]

I don't have time to explain.

[Joe Getty]

Just do it right. Get him. Drop us Note mailbagarmstrongandgetti.com I love this from Adam. I think it'd be good for the Supreme Court to decide the sanctuary city legality before they decide the boys and girls sports thing. I could see looney Tunes states like California being a trans sanctuary state. They already are to fight against Trump's Supreme Court. Maybe that's too tinfoil hat, but years ago sanctuary city for illegals would have been the same, right? Crazy.

[Jack Armstrong]

They those are two things they should have dealt with years ago. Is there such thing as a sanctuary city? And what's the deal with the whole trans deal? So both of those things should have just been, I don't know, some sort of. They gotta have some sort of special. These are two big issues we gotta settle.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's like, hey, Congress, can you deal with this crap, please? You do anything.

[Jack Armstrong]

Write some laws.

[Joe Getty]

Moving along, your brilliant idea, Jack, of wearing a bunch of T shirts at a presidential debate with Gavin Newsom that would merely have big pictures of the various cities of California that have gone to hell. And every question, every answer, you would just point to a picture of the squalor of California, then peel it off to the next T shirt. Does that roughly describe your strategy? Yes.

[Jack Armstrong]

Here's a picture of downtown Modesto with homeless people everywhere.

[Joe Getty]

Anyway, the fabulous Sean writes, all I can think is the moderators asked the Republican candidate to not continue taking off his shirts, et cetera. And he could reply with total exasperation, it's a shirt. What do you do with the shirt? You put it on, you take it off, you. I hope I did an adequate imitation of last year's clip of the year. What do you do? You drive in and you drive out. That's what people do their driveways, you. I would have to work on my invitation to that guy to get it exactly right. That is fantastic. On the subject of Katanji Brown Jackson, kb KBJ is the final DEI HR boss. Aaron writes, we're absolutely stuck with her for an entire generation. I now fully understand why SCOTUS appointees must be brutally interrogated before getting the job. What a nightmare. Then this from Ryan and Houston, Dear Cold Warrior and old Fancy Jack. Two things can be true. One, we need people to enforce immigration laws. Two, there are plenty of vice agents that I wouldn't want to have the power they have. You know, I read an incredibly persuasive piece by a very, very serious commentator about the lack of professionalism, strategy and tactics that ICE exhibited in Minnesota, which led to. Which certainly was a part of the violence.

[Jack Armstrong]

I saw a couple clips on msnbc. If they weren't taken out of context or misrepresented or something, they were highly troubling.

[Joe Getty]

Yeah, there's truth on both sides. We all need to ratchet everything down. Calm the hell down and be smart. Stop being angry and emotional and be smart. Let's see, we can't be putting people.

[Jack Armstrong]

On the ground who are U.S. citizens because they don't have their driver's license in their pocket.

[Joe Getty]

Right? Right. I would agree. We don't want that in America. And then Ryan mentions he's starting a new Armstrong and Getty. Read it under Armstrong, Getty no Space. Armstrong, Getty no Space. If you're into that sort of thing. Let's see. We don't really have time to squeeze that in. In. We'll, we'll squeeze in a little more email later on, including the person who's murderously angry at me. The cause of the anger will shock you.

[Jack Armstrong]

So that's a Reddit thread. A new Reddit thread, you said?

[Joe Getty]

Yes, sir.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. If I'm ever feeling too good about myself or too, I don't know, self important or something like that, I go to some of these things, our Facebook page, our Reddit thread or whatever, and list of people criticize me and then bring me back to life. If you missed a segment, gets podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand.

[Joe Getty]

Armstrong and Getty.

[Podcast Announcer]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[Joe Getty]

Guaranteed Human.