Chase Strangio (6:00)

So for pride, let us recognize that reproductive justice is trans justice is queer justice. Our liberation is not going to come from the courts. We are. It is not going to come from Congress. It is going to come from us. It's going to come from our histories of knowing exactly how to take care of each other, how to get each other health care, how, to, say, unjust laws, and this court, quite frankly, because that's not where justice is going to live. So I am excited to be out here with all of you. I'm excited to build upon the histories of liberation and resistance that have been centuries in the making.

Matt Walsh (6:43)

So this is the esteemed orator that the ACLU selected to argue in front of the Supreme Court yesterday, Someone who says, f the court, and then uploads it on social media. Now, in case it's not obvious, this is yet another DEI selection. Chase Strangio identifies as trans. So they put her up there to get a headline out of it. She's the first trans attorney to argue at the Supreme Court, and so on. That's the logic. And it didn't go very well. Like all DEI hires, Chase Strangio crashed and burned multiple times. At one point during oral arguments, for example, Justice Alito pressed Strangio on the question of whether so called gender affirming treatments actually help prevent suicides in children. And this is a question that goes to the very heart of the trans agenda as well as the merits of the case. A core argument in the ACLU's petition that was filed with the Supreme Court is that child sex changes are necessary because they save lives. It's also one of the most common refrains we hear from trans activists all the time. This is a life savings medicine. They say they use that line, would you rather have a living son or a dead daughter? Implying that it's better to castrate a child than lose that child to suicide. This is maybe their number one argument. In fact. Now they don't use this line because it's accurate or grounded in reality. They use it because it's often very effective. It's a tool of emotional blackmail and it works or it has in the past. And if you don't challenge the premise of the question, which is false, you might fall for it and give the trans activists what they want. But Alito didn't accept the false premise. And Strangio had no follow up, had no way of dealing with that. Instead, she admitted that there's no evidence that child sex changes, quote unquote, actually reduced the number of suicides in children. Pretty remarkable moment. Watch.

Justice Alito (8:32)

But on page 195 of the cast report, it says there is no evidence that gender affirmative treatments reduce suicide.

Chase Strangio (8:44)

What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly is rare. And we're talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don't necessarily have completed suicides within them. However, there are multiple studies, long term longitudinal studies, that do show that there is a reduction in suicidality, which I think is a positive outcome to this treatment.

Matt Walsh (9:18)

So this is what always happens when trans activists have to answer a follow up question every single time. This is what you get. They'll make some outrageous claim and then you ask for evidence and they don't have any. They'll shout you down if they can. Or in this context, because they can't shot you down at the Supreme Court. They're forced to admit that they were lying, that it's not true. And again, you can't emphasize enough. This is one of the key claims of their whole case that the lawyer arguing the case just admitted was false. Now what happened here is that Justice Alito noticed that the ACLU barely mentioned The CAST report. In their brief before the court, they put the cast report in a footnote and didn't address it in any meaningful way. So Alita picked up on the fact that they wanted to bury the evidence they didn't like. And then they were called out on, they were called out on it and they had to admit that the cast report was devastating to their whole argument. Here we have the ACLU's lead attorney admitting that according to the data, so called gender affirming care doesn't actually reduce the rates of suicide among young people. So what does this gender affirming care, quote unquote, accomplish? Chase Strangio goes on to claim that it reduces the number of young people who say they want to kill themselves, but doesn't really make sense either. I mean, if, if you, if you really did have some magical treatment that greatly reduced the number of people who say they want to kill themselves, you'd think that naturally the number of suicides would go down too. But apparently that's not happening. It's enough to make you wonder if anything this Trace Chase Strangio person is saying is remotely true. It also raises questions about how exactly we're measuring the suicidality of young people. But even if this new argument did somehow make sense, it's still a massive retreat from the previous position of the Biden doj. The aclu, trans activists. They claimed for years that child sex changes were necessary because they were life saving. And now they're finally admitting that they have no evidence to support that contention. They expected us to believe in absurdity, that disfiguring a child would save his life somehow on the basis of statistics and expert opinions that they were completely fabricating. This was a devastating moment for the aclu, the doj, the trans agenda, also in general, a devastating moment. The reason the ACLU and the Biden DOJ are almost certainly going to lose this case, although we don't want to count our chickens before they hatch. But it looks very likely that they're going to lose is that the Supreme Court in its current makeup is reluctant to override the democratic will of the voters on account of experts and data that are clearly unreliable, if not totally invented. And what Strangio just admitted is that the experts in the data are indeed highly unreliable, if not outright lies. In his questions during oral arguments, John Roberts made it clear that this is a big problem for the government's case. The alleged consensus among medical organizations on this issue has collapsed largely because of countries like Sweden and the uk and that makes it very Hard for the Supreme Court to overturn the democratic will of the people. Justice Kavanaugh made the same point. Listen, if it's evolving like that and changing and England's pulling back and Sweden's pulling back, it strikes me as pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court to come in the nine of us, and constitutionalize the whole area when the rest of the world, or at least the people who. The countries that have been at the forefront of this are pumping the brakes on this kind of treatment because of concerns about the risks. That's a good way of putting it. And that's what the ACLU and the Biden administration wants. As Kavanaugh points out, the whole rest of the world, you know, they are. They either never engaged in this madness to begin with, or they're pulling back from it. And the Biden administration and the aclu, they want to go the opposite way and, you know, put this into the Constitution, engrave it in the Constitution, that these doctors have a constitutional right to do this to kids. Now, the other major problem for the DOJ and the ACLU is that in their understanding, anyone can become transgender at any moment. I mean, that's the entire concept underpinning gender ideology. If you want to be a woman, just say you're a woman. And it's true. If you change your mind at any point, you can switch back, no problem. Somebody could be a man and a woman on the same day if they want. Now, this is an attractive proposition for narcissistic people who think that they can play God over themselves and biology. But practically, in this case, it creates a lot of issues. And that's because a key argument that the ACLU and the Biden administration are making is that the Tennessee's ban violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution on the grounds that it supposedly treats people differently depending on an immutable characteristic, namely, their sex. So here's the ACLU's argument. They say that under this law, if you're a boy and you need puberty blockers to address a medical issue like precocious puberty, then you can get puberty blockers. But if you're a girl and you want puberty blockers in order to stall your physical development, in order to affirm your sense of gender identity, you can't get them. Therefore, they say the law is discriminating on the basis of sex. Now, there are about four major problems with this, more than four, but the whole thing is nonsensical. But just to highlight four, first of all, the purpose of the medical intervention is vastly different in those two cases I just mentioned. The boy in that example wants to get puberty blockers in order to address the condition of an abnormally premature puberty, while the perfectly healthy girl wants puberty blockers to suppress the normal and healthy functions and development of her body. These are not just different reasons for getting the puberty blockers. They are like opposite reasons. So the law is treating people differently here, but not based on their sex. It's treating them differently based on the kind of treatment they want and the reason they want it. And it's normal for a law to distinguish between situations like that, because certain kinds of medical interventions are far more dangerous than others. They're not the same thing. Okay. If a child has cancer, the benefits of giving the child chemotherapy probably outweighs the risks. If a child doesn't have cancer, then giving the child chemotherapy would be child abuse. It would be torture. It's the exact same procedure, but in one case it's okay, another case it's not. How could that be the case? Well, because in one case it's treating a legitimate illness, and in other case it isn't. So, pretty obvious distinction there. Another problem here is that in every other equal protection case that involves sex discrimination, one gender can clearly say that they're losing out in some way. There's usually some obvious injury to a member of one gender and not the other. So, for example, maybe a man is denied a job while a woman is hired solely on the basis of sex. Something like that. But that's not the case here. The Tennessee law applies to both girls and boys equally. It's not negatively affecting either group. In fact, it's positively affecting everybody. It's protecting all kids, regardless of sex. But also regardless, it applies the same regardless of your sex. And that was an observation that Clarence Thomas made at one point during the arguments. Additionally, Clarence Thomas also pointed out that if you think about it, what the ACLU is seeking in this case would actually produce its own form of sex discrimination. The ACLU wants the plaintiff in the case, a girl who identifies as a boy, to get drugs that would enable her to undergo a, quote, traditional male puberty. But if the ACLU won the case, boys wouldn't get the same result. They wouldn't be able to get puberty blockers to undergo a male puberty. And as Clarence Thomas pointed out, using the ACLU's own logic, that's a form of sex discrimination. The fourth fatal problem with the ACLU's argument is that as Justice Alito observed trans identity. Identity is not in immutable characteristic. Through the miracle of gender ideology, somebody can supposedly become a man in the morning and then revert back to being a woman in the evening. In other words, so called trans status is not fixed and only immutable, fixed characteristics like race can qualify for protection under our civil rights laws. That's why this was such a big moment in oral arguments yesterday. Strangio was eventually forced to admit that indeed, trans identification is not an immutable characteristic. Another huge moment. Listen to this.

Justice Alito (17:58)

Does the category of does transgender status apply to individuals who, who are gender fluid?

Chase Strangio (18:08)

I think that the distinguishing characteristic is to have a birth sex that does not align with or a gender that does not align with one's birth sex. So it may include people who have different understandings of their gender identity, but I think it is still the distinguishing characteristic of a birth sex and a gender identity that are incongruent.

Justice Alito (18:29)

Are there individuals who are born male, assigned male at birth, who at one point identify as female, but then later come to identify as male, and likewise for individuals who are assigned female at birth, at some point identify as female. I'm sorry, identify as male, but later come to identify as female. Are there not such people?

Chase Strangio (19:00)

There are such people. I agree with that, Justin.

Justice Alito (19:02)

So it's not an immutable characteristic, is it?

Chase Strangio (19:04)

Well, I think people's understanding of it shifts, but the evidence shows that there is at least a strong underlying basis. And I think the normative reason for that particular consideration is whether or not this is something that someone should or could change and whether they should have to change it in order to receive constitutional protections. And I think transgender status squarely fits within.

Matt Walsh (19:27)

So once again, it all devolves into word salad. And once again, the. One of the, you know, one of the pivotal aspects of the ACLU's case just absolutely crumbled. They had to admit that trans status is not immutable. That alone, like that alone means you lose if that's the case, which of course it is, if it's the case that trans status is not immutable by the. And that's accepting the ACLU's of the trans activist own argument, like accepting them, just letting them tell us what it means to be trans. According to them, even it's not immutable. So the whole case is out the window. So we've already heard two or three examples where if you just took just like one moment, just any one of these moments isolated, would destroy the whole case. But then you add them all together, and you have just an absolute meltdown. Which means that Chase Strangio's big day at the Supreme Court didn't go very well, to put it mildly. No one could have seen that coming. But, you know, that's what happened. Actually, it's pretty clear that everyone saw it coming, which is why the Biden administration's Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelicer, did most of the arguing yesterday. In her remarks, she conceded that some of this gender affirming care, so called, results in the sterilization of children. But she said it was worth it. Anyway, here's her reasoning.

Elizabeth Prelicer (20:51)

You mentioned fertility and regret, and I'd like to take both of those concerns head on. I do want to acknowledge that there is evidence to suggest that gender affirming care with respect to hormones can have some impacts on fertility. I think you have to recognize that the effect of denying this care is to produce irreversible physical effects that are consistent with their birth sex because they have to go through puberty before they turn 18. So essentially what this law is doing is saying we're going to make all adolescents in the state develop the physical secondary sex characteristics consistent with their gender or with their sex assigned at birth, even though that might significantly worsen gender dysphoria, increase the risk of suicide, and I think critically make it much harder to live and be accepted in their gender identity as an adult. Because if you're requiring someone to undergo a male puberty and they develop an Adam's apple, that's going to be hard to reverse and they're more likely to be identified as transgender and subject to discrimination and harassment as adults.

Matt Walsh (21:46)

Just utter nonsense. This, of course, is the so called forced puberty argument. She's saying that Tennessee's law is what forces children to undergo puberty, even though they might not want to. She says, quote, what this law is doing is saying we're going to make all adolescents in the state develop the physical secondary sex characteristics consistent with their gender or with their sex assigned at birth. Well, no, the law in Tennessee isn't making anyone develop secondary sex characteristics. That's just nature, okay? That's, that's what happens naturally. That's the normal series of events that occurs as children get older. I mean, it's no different than saying that, you know, if you won't let a 9 year old get a nose job, that you're forcing the nine year old to have the nose that she was born with. No, we didn't create the nose. That's just your nose. And what we're saying is nine years old is too young to go get cosmetic surgery. So what the Biden administration wants to do is to interrupt the natural development of children with completely untested chemicals that will sterilize them. They're trying to reframe our position as somehow the unnatural one because they recognize at some level that it's grotesque and extremely dangerous to conduct medical experiments on children. And so they have to reduce themselves to these kinds of totally vacuous and absurd arguments. In her questioning, Sonia Sotomayor pretended not to realize all this. She tried to claim that there's no difference between castrating a child and giving a child an aspirin watch cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners. So it becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefits versus risk. And the question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left.

Justice Alito (23:28)

I'm sorry, Counselor. Every medical treatment has a risk. Even taking aspirin, there is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that's going to suffer a harm. So the question in my mind is not, do policy. Policymakers decide whether one person's life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from this treatment? The question is, can you stop one sex from the other?

Matt Walsh (24:06)

This is one of those moments where we're all supposed to pretend that Sonia Sotomayor isn't a complete idiot. We're all supposed to pretend that she's a wise Latina who adds much needed diversity to the court. It's all very degrading and intentionally so. A JV debate team would disband in shame if they ever made the argument you just heard there. And this is the highest court in the land, okay? Aspirin is one of the most tested medicines on the planet. We know every side effect. We have all the information there is to have about it. We know what ages can safely take it, what ages cannot. We know everything about what the dosage is supposed to be. Aspirin does not pretend to change an immutable characteristic like your sex. There is no aspirin report in the UK that shows that there's no benefit to taking aspirin. But the Sonia Sotomayor taking an aspirin and castrating yourself in order to affirm a subjective gender identity are the same thing. No differences that she can detect. But Sotomayor didn't stop there. As a noted feminist, Sotomayor went on to compare a girl with unwanted hair to a girl with Quote, unwanted breasts. She actually drew that comparison without missing a beat. And then the lawyer for the state of Tennessee informed her that, you know, those are two very different things. Watch.

Justice Alito (25:23)

The question is, can you stop one sex from the other, one person of one sex from another sex from receiving that benefit? So if the medical condition is unwanted hair by a nine year old boy who can receive estrogen for that, because at nine years old, if he has hair, he gets laughed at and picked on and his puberty is coming in too early, but a girl who has unwanted hair says or wants unwanted, has unwanted breasts, or a boy at that age can get that drug but the other can't. That's the sex based difference. It's not. The medical condition is the same and we don't agree saying one sex is getting it and the other's not.

Matt Walsh (26:20)

We do not agree that the medical condition is the same. We do not think that giving puberty blockers to a six year old that has started precocious puberty is the same medical condition treatment as giving it to a minor who wants to transition. Those are not the same medical treatment. Yeah, right. I mean, yes, it's not the same. And this really has always been the primary challenge of debating the left on this issue, on so many other issues too, but particularly on this one, that their arguments are so dumb, they are so stupid, they are so mind bogglingly off base that you don't even know where to begin in responding to them. They can kind of, you might fall into a kind of stupefied silence when you hear stuff like this. Because when she says that, it's like hair and breasts are two different things. I mean, can we start with the fact that one is a physical part of your body, that if you get rid of that part of your body, it will not grow back, but hair does. So we could start with that. You know, same reason that like cutting your hair and cutting off your arm are not the same things. Well, we let children, we take children to barbershops to cut off their hair. Why couldn't we cut off their arm? Answer that now, counselor. Now, if you understand these oral arguments as a competition among the DEI justices to outdone each other, then it starts to make a little bit more sense. That's especially true after you see what Ketanji Brown Jackson did. She went ahead and compared Tennessee's law to a ban on interracial marriage. This is the same justice who, lest we forget, couldn't even define the word woman during her confirmation hearing. And now she's Saying that, in effect, there's no difference between protecting kids from castration and preventing white people from marrying black people.

Elizabeth Prelicer (28:19)

Watch being drawn by the statute. That was sort of like the starting point. The question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn't, you know, necessarily invidious or whatever. But, you know, as I read the statute here. Excuse me, the case here, you know, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is Now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of inconsistent. You know, you can't do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It's sort of the same thing. So it's interesting to me that we now have this different argument, and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away with what they did here by just making a classification argument the way that Tennessee is in this case. Yes, I think that's exactly right, that there is absolutely, absolutely a parallel between any law that says you can't act inconsistent with a protected characteristic.

Matt Walsh (29:18)

This is what you get when you select justices based on race. They're only capable of talking about race. They have to shoehorn every single issue into some racial framework because it's all they know. It got them to this point in their careers. So what else are they going to do? And in this case, you know, not that it really needs to be said, but there is no comparison between Tennessee's ban on child castration and Virginia's long defunct law banning interracial marriage. For one thing, Virginia's law prevented adults from marrying based on their immutable characteristics. Okay? Tennessee's law, as we've already discussed, does not do any of that. It prevents minors from undergoing experimental sex changes, not because of their immutable characteristics, but because these attempts to change their sex are actively harmful to them and also impossible. Okay? They're trying to do an impossible thing. It's an affront to basic biology, okay? It's a law that's saying we can. You cannot do intentional harm to a child all in an attempt to bring about a result that is fundamentally impossible. It's not fundamentally impossible for a black person to marry a white person. That's a very possible thing to happen. It is fundamentally impossible for a boy to become a girl. And so any attempt to turn him into one will constitutes abuse in the worst form. As far as I could tell, based on these oral arguments, this is looking like a 6 to 3 decision in favor of Tennessee. The best the ACLU could hope for is that the Supreme Court somehow finds that this law does indeed discriminate on the basis of sex. And if that happens, the case goes back to the Sixth Circuit for a rerun of their analysis with a slightly higher standard of review of the law. But that outcome also appears to be very unlikely at this point. For the most part, the conservative justices asked good questions, demonstrated their skepticism of gender ideology. There were some moments that raised some eyebrows, like when John Roberts referred to chase Strangio as Mr. Even though she's a female. There's also the fact that no conservative justice directly refuted the unscientific made up terminology that the Biden DOJ used, like, for example, a gender assigned at birth and so on. The justice mostly accepted some of the definitions and framings of the activists, which they shouldn't have done. But in general, we got exactly what we wanted. The trans activists appear to be losing this fight and they know it. We are nearing the culmination of the battle that we began that really began years and years and years ago. But in terms of this law, that could be one of the catalysts of that was the Vanderbilt expose that we published. All of these activists can do now, all they could do, as they did yesterday, is just scream into the abyss. In the meantime, we'll continue fighting to ensure that these people won't be able to ruin the life of another child. If this case goes the way we expect it to, it's not the end of the fight. It's the start, actually, of a whole new fight, of an effort to ban this butchery nationwide and then to defeat gender ideology entirely. We can start by cutting all federal funding to the gender industry. And that'd be a good, easy place to start. Something can be done right away. And from there we go on with the ultimate goal, a total ban on this practice. So this is a victory that seemed pretty far away just a few years ago. But based on what just happened in the Supreme Court, it's now clear that finally we are very close to achieving it. Now let's get to our five headlines. You're busy enough this season without having to get up on a ladder to clean out your gutters. With holiday decorations to hang and winter prep to tackle, the last thing you need is to worry about clogged gutters. And let's be honest, nobody wants to be up on a ladder when the cold weather hits. Whether you've been dealing with this headache for years or haven't checked your gutters in longer than you like to admit there's a permanent solution waiting for you with leaffilter. You know, I used to think gutter maintenance wasn't just another simple home task. But after seeing the damage that improperly maintained gutters can cause, I learned it's best to trust the experts. What seems like a simple clog can lead to serious issues down the line. When you invest in leaffilter, you're protecting your entire home. Water damage from clogged gutters isn't just inconvenient. It can lead to flooded basements, damaged foundations, and rotting siding. Leaffilter's patented technology is designed to keep everything out except water. No gaps, no holes. Just a clean, maintenance free system backed by a lifetime. No clog guarantee. Over a million homeowners have already made the switch. When you schedule your free inspection, a leaffilter trusted pro will thoroughly clean, realign and seal your existing gutters before installing your new protection system. They'll even provide a no obligation estimate so you know exactly what to expect. Don't miss out on your last chance of the year to save up to 35% off when you protect your gutters with Leaffilter, America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection at leaffilter.com walsh that's our lowest price of the year, up to 35% off@leaffilter.com Walsh See representative for warranty details. Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and devastating, folks. From the Maui fires to hurricane Helene, we're seeing entire towns wiped out in 24 hours with barely any warning. What happens? People are left without basic resources, scrambling to survive. Now, I know you're thinking it won't happen here. That's exactly what everyone thinks until they're in the middle of a catastrophe. Being prepared isn't just smart, it's essential. That's where the wellness company's emergency kit comes in. These aren't your run of the mill first first aid kits. We're talking about a personalized mini pharmacy right in your own home. No more relying on overworked doctors or understocked pharmacies when disaster strikes. Bacterial infections, staph bite wounds, UTIs, strep throat, respiratory illnesses. These kits have you covered. It's like having a doctor in your pocket, minus the liberal indoctrination from med school. Look, you keep a fire extinguisher handy, right? Well, consider this your medical fire extinguisher. It's not paranoia, it's preparedness. Here's how it works. Just fill out a form online. A pharmacist reviews it and boom, simple as that. Your kit arrives in two weeks. It even comes with a medical board approved guidebook. It's that simple. And right now, when you go to urgentcarekit.com Walsh and use promo code Walsh, you'll save $60 plus free shipping. That's urgentcarekit.com Walsh to save $60. This is preparedness simplified. Invest in your family's self managed insurance plan today. Urgentcarekit.com Walsh USA residents only okay, we'll just hit on a couple quick things. I wanted to play this moment on CNN as the media was covering this Supreme Court case. And there was actually two things that make this moment interesting to me, as they were, I think, talking to someone with the lions defending freedom. And I want you to listen to what the CNN anchor says and how this exchange goes. Listen, I think a lot of people are confused about this issue. They don't know where they stand on it. But where is the room for a conversation about this? I love that we're having one right.

Chase Strangio (36:23)

Now in terms of a conversation.

Matt Walsh (36:25)

And that's what was at issue today.

Chase Strangio (36:27)

What kid, what girl is knows whether she's going to want to have a baby long, long term or what testosterone will do to her uterus or that.

Matt Walsh (36:36)

She will increase her risk of heart attack by taking these drugs? Some of them do. No, no, none of them. No, I don't think none of them. None of them do. 85% what we know from the science. And again, it's about not putting ideology over evidence. And that's what's happening here. Yeah, I love that moment. Some of them do. No, no, you moron, no. The patronizing tone was perfectly appropriate and I really liked it there. But I think so like I said, there were two things here. First is just the framing by the CNN anchor. And we're hearing this more and more from the left about this issue. You notice how she starts, she says, is there room for conversation? Can't we at least talk about it? So that's already a retreat, okay? There's very much a retreat going on on the left, especially in the mainstream media on this issue because as I've been saying for a while now, they're embarrassed of the issue. Most of these people know that they're totally wrong about it, that they're just on the wrong side. Most of them know that because most of them are not crazy. So they do, I mean, despite appearances, they do in fact know that, that this is totally wrong. But they were much more gung ho about it a few years ago, even though they knew it was wrong, because it seemed like the political, the winning side, politically and culturally. And now it isn't. And so now if you're on the left, and especially if you're in the public, if you have a platform and you go out and defend the idea that we should chemically castrate children, where you defend the idea that men can get pregnant or any of this other nonsense, you are saying something you know isn't true. You're saying something you know is crazy. You're embarrassing yourself and you're not even on the winning side. So you're doing all of that. You're disgracing yourself for a side that isn't even winning. There's no benefit anymore to you. So what you're seeing is this kind of this retreat and this recalibration. And so now you get a lot of stuff like this where the CNN anchor. Well, can we talk about. Isn't there room for a conversation? Yeah, well, you know what? That's. Sure, we could talk about it. That's what we've been saying for years. Let's have a conversation about it now. There's not much to actually talk about because you on that side are just totally, completely wrong. And you have no argument, you have no evidence, you have no logic, you have no common sense. Everything you're saying is clearly, objectively wrong and not to mention just totally incoherent. But if you want to talk about it, sure, we're not the ones who have ever been scared about talking about this issue, but you guys were the ones for years that were doing everything you could to shut down any conversation about this. Okay? You were the ones if we tried to talk about it on any platform, we would get deplatformed, censored, shut down. Okay? So you're the ones who have prevented that from happening, prevented this conversation from taking place. But now, sure, you want to. Let's talk about. We're going to continue beating you and we're going to continue advancing our agenda, which our agenda is just simple truth and common sense and basic human decency. But, yeah, we could talk about it in the meantime. And they were talking about it there. And we hear from the CNN anchor that, well, the alliance, the woman with Alliance Defending Freedom says that makes the very obvious point that when you sterilize a child, when you do these irreversible things to a child, the child is now sacrificing something that they don't understand what they're sacrificing. A child can't make the, can't actually consent to the decision to, for example, not have kids in the future, to in the future not be a parent. They can't actually make that decision because they have no idea what that means and they have no idea what they're going to want to do or how their priorities are going to change when they're adults. So no child can know that. No young girl at the age of 10 or whatever can say, yeah, I know for a fact I'm never going to want to be a mother when I go, I'll never want that. 20 years from now. I'm not going to want it. No 10 year old girl can say that. They can say it, they can physically say it, but they can't know it. And that was the point that we heard there. And the only thing the CNN anchor could say is, well, really all of them. Are you saying no child, no child could possibly know that? Yeah, that's what we're saying. Yes. No child, no child can possibly know what they're going to want or what kind of life they're going to want to lead or what big decisions they're going to make for themselves and about their lives when they're adults. No child can know that. The fact that a child says as a child I'm not going to want to have children in the future, that doesn't mean anything. As I've said many times up until the age of as recently as the age of 23 or 24, I would have told you that. Yeah, I don't even know if I really want to have kids now. I have six of them. So if you had asked me when I was 10, I was like, yeah, if you'd asked me when I was 10, do I want to have kids in the future, I almost certainly would have said no. What? I want to have little mes run around. I'm a pain in the ass. I wouldn't want to have to deal with this. Of course, a child says that and thinks that way. So just total nonsense. All right, Staying on the same general plane here. Daily Wire has this report. The Ladies Professional Golf Association Tour has announced a major change to its eligibility rules for competition for transgender identifying male players starting in 2025. On Wednesday, the LPGA released findings from its working group, which included experts in medicine, science, sports physiology, golf performance and gender policy law that found, quote, the effects of male puberty confer competitive advantages in golf performance compared to players who have not undergone male puberty. The statement read, quote, under the new policy, athletes who are assigned female at birth are eligible to compete on the LPGA Tour, Epson Tour, Ladies European Tour and in all other elite LPGA competitions. It added, quote, players assigned male at birth and who have gone through male puberty are not eligible to compete in the aforementioned events. The policies governing the LPGAs recreational programs and non elite events utilize different criteria to provide opportunities for participation in the broader LPGA community. The move comes after trans identifying male golfer Hayley Davidson had competed in the NXXT Tour before the group changed its rules and was removed. The move on Wednesday now cuts off Davidson's possible path to the Tour or Epson Tours after competing in Q school in the fall as the player inched closer to qualifying for an LPGA Tour card, Davidson, who formerly played on a men's collegiate golf team, took to Instagram after the gender eligibility rule change was announced, Davidson wrote, quote, can't say I didn't see this coming. Banned from the Epson and lpga, all the silence and people wanting to stay neutral. Thanks for absolutely nothing. This happened because of all of your silence. And somehow people are surprised. The suicide rate for transgender people is around 50%. Situations just like this are part of the reason. So the trans golfer has the emotional blackmail there at the end. As usual, as we covered in the opening, this is a favorite tactic of these people. He essentially threatens to kill himself because he didn't get his way. And this is what trans activists do. They put a proverbial gun to their own heads and say, give me what I want or I'll pull the trigger. And for a long time, the country acquiesced to their ransom demands. But that isn't happening anymore. The tactic isn't working. Because now the answer to this kind of threat is the answer it always should have been, which is, look, we don't want you to hurt yourself. We hope you don't. We hope you get the help you need. But we're not gonna let you manipulate and control us, okay? It doesn't work that way. You can't say, give me everything I want or something bad's gonna happen to me because I'm gonna do it to myself. It doesn't work that way. You can't get what you want in adult life that way. I mean, for a while you were able to, but that time is over. You're going to make whatever choice you're going to make. You're going to respond however you choose to respond. We can't control that. We can't control your actions, but we can say that you're not going to control ours. And that has been the response. Finally, and even now, an organization like the LPGA is getting it right. I mean, mostly right, you know, because they stipulate that if an athlete was assigned male at birth and has undergone male puberty, then they're not eligible to compete in women's golf. The effect of this policy is that it's going to eliminate the vast majority of trans identified males who would want to play in women's golf, like Hayley Davidson, the person who uses the name Hayley Davidson. But it does technically leave the door open for males to compete. They just have to be males who never underwent male puberty, which is to say males who were chemically castrated with gender transition drugs at a young age. Like that's what the policy actually says and allows. And this is a door that shouldn't be left open. First, because even a male in that camp is still a male. And second, because such a policy implicitly, even if unintentionally, endorses and even encourages the use of puberty blockers and all of that, it becomes an argument for giving these drugs to children. A bad argument, but an argument that you will hear from the trans activists. And they're going to say, okay, well, I guess that means we gotta, that's all the more reason why we gotta give these drugs to kids at the youngest age possible. So the decision here isn't perfect, but it is a lot better than the previous policy of letting any male who says he's a woman into the competition. So it's a marked improvement. And aside from leaving the door cracked open a bit more than it should, it's a common sense policy. It's the kind of policy that should have been in place all along. And it really is. Well, it's frustrating for me at one level when I see all of these organizations reversing their so called trans inclusive policies and embracing common sense and science again. And what's frustrating about it, even though I'm happy about the policies, I do have to think, okay, great, was that so hard? Why didn't you say this from the beginning? When I hear the LPGA now in the year 2024 say, wow, we've looked into this and we decided men can't compete. Why couldn't you have said that 10 years ago? Why did it take you all this time? Wasn't very hard to say, was it? Now we don't have to dwell on this aspect of things right now. There will come a time for that. Maybe in the future for now. We don't have to dwell on it. For now. The only thing that really matters is that everybody gets on board with common sense and biology and protecting women's spaces, protecting children, protecting men too. So we need everybody on board. I welcome everybody on board. I throw open my arms and I embrace any of the prodigal sons who return home to the land of reality. Okay, But I can't Forget the past 10 years where so many people, seemingly the majority of people, really openly affirmed or silently kowtowed to this insane agenda that went along with this idea that men can become women and vice versa. And all of that. I can't forget that. And all the people who went along with it and all the organizations that went along with it. I remember that. And we should all remember it because we'll never be able to trust any of those people again or take them seriously again. And once again, I'm not saying yeah, we welcome everybody in. Please come in. Please come in out of the cold, leave this madness behind and come back to reality. And I certainly welcome that. But it doesn't, It's a little bit of a forgive but don't forget kind of thing that we can't just pretend all this didn't happen. And there is a price for getting something like this wrong. Like the trans ideology issue. If you got it wrong, there's a price. And the price is simply that your credibility is permanently shot forever. And we don't have to hash that out right now. Let's finish the job of defeating gender ideology and then we can figure out what happens going forward. And we can talk about whose voices and opinions can be taken seriously in the future and whose can't. Because if you didn't immediately sniff this thing out for what it is and understand that it had to be opposed, if you didn't have the common sense or the gumption or the courage to do that, then, like I said, it's just something we keep in mind in the future. We just can't rely on you and we can't trust you and you have no credibility. But even so, welcome to the lpga. Very glad to finally have them on board with this basic common sense thing. You know, those tasks that seem to drag on forever, like that mountain of unread emails that somehow multiply overnight, or that simple office chair that comes with a 50 page instruction manual. Maybe you've watched a plant grow at a glacial pace or spent what feels like half your life on hold with an airline's customer service. Well, if you're an employer, finding the right talent can feel just as time consuming. But here's the good news. ZipRecruiter is changing all of that. They find qualified candidates and they find them fast. And today you can try it for free@ziprecruiter.com Walsh what makes ZipRecruiter different? Well, they're ranked as the number one hiring site by employers on G2, and it's easy to see why. Their smart technology starts working the moment you post a job, instantly connecting you with qualified candidates. Their powerful matching technology does all the heavy lifting, saving you precious time and resources in your search for top talent. Let Zip recruiter find top talent for all of your roles in no time at all. See why four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. And if you go to ZipRecruiter.com Walsh right now, you can try it for free. That's the same price as laughing so hard that your sides hurt or getting a compliment from a random stranger. It's all free. Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com Walsh ZipRecruiter the smartest way to hire Only a few days left to join the fight and save 50% off if you've ever thought about joining DailyWire plus, now's the time. Right now, new annual memberships are half price. It's our best deal of the year. That's one full year of uncensored daily shows with limited ads, groundbreaking documentaries, and hit movies like Am I Racist? Series, including Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's the Gospels, along with our entire entertainment catalog. Plus, you get unlimited access to Bentkey, our kids app packed with content that reflects your values already. Remember, give the gift of Daily Wire plus this holiday season at 50% off, this deal ends soon. Go to DailyWire.com cyberweek now and join the fight. Well, I lied. Actually, there is no daily cancellation this time there because there were two massive stories, news stories unfolding yesterday and I wanted to have a chance to talk about both of them. Which means that our normal closing segment has to be pushed off for today. And that's because today marks the third day of jury deliberations in a trial that never should have occurred in the first place. That's possible, but by the time you listen to this, the verdict will have already been decided and announced. But as I say these words, they are still in deliberations. New York, of course, is prosecuting Daniel Penny for the crime of defending a subway car full of passengers from a violent maniac named Jordan Neely. On May 1st of last year, Neely, who at the time had an active warrant out for his arrest for assaulting a woman on subway, boarded a subway car in Manhattan and announced that he wasn't afraid to go to prison. And that quote, someone is going to die today. Multiple people on the train later said that they had never been more terrified in their lives. Penny then put Neely in a neck restraint and eventually Neely died. New York medical examiner's office says that Neely died of neck compression. But a Texas based forensic pathologist retained by the defense says that New York's experts are wrong and that the Neely in fact died due to a combination of factors, including a sickle cell crisis caused by exertion, schizophrenia, and his use of synthetic marijuana. So it's a George Floyd type scenario all over again. And we've been through the outline of this case many times before. We've been following this case closely, as you know, ever since the incident first occurred on the subway. And I believe it is one of the most important murder trials in American history. And so at this point, the details don't bear repeating. If you've been listening to the show, you know all of them. It's well established that a functioning, sane society would be giving Daniel Penney an award for doing what the state refused to do, which is to protect its citizens from an unstable lifelong criminal with dozens of prior arrests. But as these deliberations stretch into their third date, it's becoming clear that at least some people in New York disagree. This is not an easy verdict for these jurors. Apparently it should be, but it isn't. And just by itself, that's a very stark commentary on where things stand right now in our nation's largest city. The fact that Daniel Penny wasn't acquitted in two seconds tells you that for all intents and purposes, the right of self defense has been nullified in New York. You can act to defend yourself and others in the most obvious manner imaginable and yet still face a very real prospect of spending up to 15 years in prison. So unfortunately, no matter what happens from here on out, and hopefully they come back with not guilty. But it cannot be a truly happy conclusion at this point. The happiest conclusion is that after deliberating for days and days, they find him not guilty. It's obviously what we're praying for, but we couldn't even call that a happy conclusion at this point because number one, the case was brought in the first place, and number two, the jury had to deliberate about it for days rather than going back and talking it over for two minutes and maybe having a lunch break and then coming out and saying, yeah, of course, not guilty. Now, the more you look into why exactly this case was brought and how it was conducted, the more it becomes clear that this case really isn't about Daniel Penny or anything he did. It's about something called restorative justice. And you don't have to look very hard to see that restorative justice in practical terms is a system of race based punishment. So here, for example, is a video that's been going viral the last couple days of the prosecutor in the Penny case, a woman named Daphna Yorin. She's an assistant DA in Manhattan. And in this clip she's discussing a previous case from 2019 in which she explains her decision to go easy on a 57 year old black man who killed an 87 year old Asian college professor while robbing him at an ATM machine. Yorin says that she felt sorry for the 57 year old black man and so she decided to pursue manslaughter charges instead of felony murder. Watch.

Daphna Yorin (57:09)

I had a murder case where the defendant did not intentionally kill the victim. He went into an ATM on the Upper west side and tried to rob an individual. Unfortunately, it was an older individual. He was 86. And in the course of the robbery he fell to the ground and as a result he died. This is under the law, a felony murder, which is akin to intentional murder. However, when I first got the case, I learned. I took the time to learn about the defendant and it was a strong case. So it wasn't about who done it. I knew immediately who did it. I could prove it. I could take it to trial that day and win it. But it wasn't about that. It was that the more I learned about the defendant and his life and the circumstances, the kinds of things that Jerrel was talking about, that one should take into account the trauma of that individual. I really felt incredibly sorry for him that he had gotten to that point in his life where he felt like there was no other choice but to commit this robbery.

Matt Walsh (58:29)

So Joran is very concerned about the emotional trauma that the killer supposedly suffered, but she's much less concerned with the actual trauma that the 85 year old man suffered, suffered trauma which killed him. And therefore she came up with an arrangement that would reduce the killer's potential sentence from 25 years to life imprisonment, all the way down to 10 years, and he won't even serve anywhere near the full 10 years. He's eligible for parole next year, in fact. Now, to be clear, because it's not obvious from that clip, the victim in this case didn't slip on a banana peel while he was being robbed. This wasn't some freak accident. The 87 year old victim was hit in the back of the head by a man 30 years younger than he was. We're talking about a violent felony that occurred. There was clear intent to cause serious and potentially fatal injury at a minimum. So what might explain Daphne Yorin's sympathy for a murderer who killed someone while committing a felony, even as she demonstrates no sympathy whatsoever for Daniel Penny? Unlike the ATM murderer, Daniel Penny didn't set out to commit a violent felony. He didn't attack an innocent elderly man so that he could steal $300. Instead, he responded to the actions of a violent felon who was terrorizing everybody around him. But Yorin's sympathies are strangely absent this time around. Now online, there are reports that Daphne Oren is a lesbian who's married to a BLM activist. And that's not particularly surprising. What we're seeing in this case is a clear example of race based restorative justice. The ATM killer was black. Daniel Penny's white. So he's not entitled to sympathy. He's not entitled to the right of self defense either. He needs to be punished solely on account of his skin color. That's what this is really about. And that's why, throughout the trial, the prosecution has repeatedly referred to Daniel Penny as the white man. So here's one exchange from the courtroom. For example, this is the DA asking questions and a witness answering, quote, question, when you saw the white man holding onto Mr. Neely, how were they? His arm was on his neck. Where is Mr. Neely's back with respect to the white man? Was Mr. Neely laying on top of the white man? Answer, like this. He had him held. The doors opened. Question, did the white man's arm ever leave Mr. Neely's neck? Answer, not that I saw. The racial emphasis was so overt and so over the top that Penny's lawyer made reference to it. When it was his turn to cross examine the witness, he began, quote, the prosecutor kept calling him the white man. I'm going to call him Danny. Is that okay? The witness replied that it was indeed okay. Now, the defense has also sought a mistrial over this, which of course, the judge denied. In New York, Soros DAs have no problem reminding jurors that white people deserve to be punished while black Defendants should get out of jail as quickly as possible, even when they bludgeon elderly Asian men to death. The prosecution has used a bunch of other dirty arguments too. For example, they used Penny's interrogation footage to portray him as callous and indifferent to Jordan Neely. Here's part of that footage.

Eric Adams (61:28)

Daniel.

Matt Walsh (61:29)

Yep. I'm detecting McCarthy. I'm detecting McNeene. I actually work here. This is where you're at right now.

Daniel Penny (61:36)

Cool.

Matt Walsh (61:37)

How you doing today?

Daniel Penny (61:37)

I'm doing well. How are you guys?

Matt Walsh (61:39)

Very good, Very good.

Eric Adams (61:40)

I'm doing well.

Matt Walsh (61:41)

You served in Rinkwood, Danny?

Daniel Penny (61:42)

I did, yes. Oh, nice.

Matt Walsh (61:45)

My little death before the son attest.

Daniel Penny (61:46)

There you go. Nice, man.

Matt Walsh (61:48)

What you doing? What was your MOS?

Daniel Penny (61:50)

I was in 0351.

Eric Adams (61:52)

I was a 03.31.

Matt Walsh (61:53)

Oh, cool.

Daniel Penny (61:54)

Machine weapons platoon. Nice, man. I was not military, so I don't know what that stuff is. It's like another language.

Matt Walsh (61:59)

3Rd Battalion, six Marines.

Daniel Penny (62:00)

Okay, there you go.

Matt Walsh (62:02)

96 to 2002, mid floats.

Chase Strangio (62:05)

Did my thing, and then I ended up here.

Matt Walsh (62:06)

Now, I got close to 22 years here now, man.

Daniel Penny (62:08)

Good pension coming up. Z there. I forget what stop it was at, but some guy came in, he's like, whipped his jacket off, and he's like, I'm gonna kill everybody. I'm gonna. I'm gonna. I can go to prison forever. I don't care. I don't do this. At that point, I looked at the person next to me like, hey, just hang on to this phone for me. I had my headphones in and took it off and just kind of, like, grabbed him from behind because he came in just to, like. Because he was acting like a lunatic, like a crazy person, so. And he was rolling around the floor. Yeah, absolutely. Something like that. I mean, those. That K2 that they're smoking, pushing people in front, like, these people are going crazy. So.

Matt Walsh (62:49)

So he seemed.

Daniel Penny (62:49)

He seemed off his lips a little bit. Yeah.

Matt Walsh (62:53)

Now, a key point here is that at this point during the interview, Daniel Penny did not know that Jordan Neely was dead. He also thought that law enforcement was on his side. So he spoke to them without a lawyer, which is always a huge mistake. Then he proceeds to describe Jordan Neely as a crazy, unhinged crackhead, which is true. And now a big part of the prosecution's closing argument is that Daniel Penney, in this interrogation, wasn't using nice words to describe Jordan Neely. They're saying that he shouldn't have called him a crackhead or referenced all the other violent thugs who pushed people in Front of subway cars. That's their evidence that Daniel Penney should go to prison, that he wasn't telling the cops that Jordan Neely was a talented Michael Jackson impersonator. He wasn't mourning the BLM martyr. He was saying things about Neely that were true. He was revealing, perhaps, that he has a negative opinion of violent crackheads, just like everybody else on the planet who isn't a violent crackhead or who isn't apparently a New York da. This is an injustice that's so undeniable that the city's mayor, Eric Adams, has just come out once again to essentially say that Daniel Penny is getting railroaded. He didn't use those exact words. And he says he can't comment on jury verdicts and so on, but he makes it clear that this prosecution is completely corrupt. He also criticized the media for portraying Jordan Neely as a Michael Jackson impersonator instead of a career felon.

Eric Adams (64:10)

Listen, you look at that on a multifaceted approach of everything that's wrong with the system that we're facing. One look at the photo that they used to show the victims. It seemed like it was a young, innocent child who was brutally murdered. And it gave that impression. When you looked at the photo that was being used, it wanted to set up in the minds of people that we were dealing with a young, innocent child that, you know, just a Michael Jackson intimidator that, you know, was just brutally assaulted. Then you look at the complete failure of our mental health system, a complete failure from the days of closing psychiatric wards and having those who needed help just turned over into the street. Now we're on the subway where we're hearing someone talking about hurting people, killing people. You have someone on that subway who was responding, doing what we should have done as a city in a state of having a better. A mental health facility. Those passengers were afraid. I'm hoping that the juries, the jury will hear all the facts. Based on all the facts that's laid out, a jury of his peers would make the right decision. And I don't want to prejudge that. I'm just looking at all the facts that are involved here and what we did to get to where we are and what we're seeing, because that could have easily been a case where you saw three innocent people murdered on our street of two weeks ago.

Matt Walsh (65:48)

So Eric Adams says that the media portrayed Jordan Neely as a Michael Jackson intimidator instead of an impersonator, because words are very challenging for the mayor of New York. We can't expect too much here from the leader of the biggest city in the United States. But you do have to give Eric Adams some credit for being the only Democrat in the entire country to contradict the official narrative on this thing, even if he's doing it as tepidly as he possibly can. In New York, this is what passes for bravery at the moment, pretty much. No one else is standing up for Daniel Penny. There are BLM mobs outside the courthouse every day. They're so loud that jurors can apparently hear them inside the courthouse 13 floors up. It's like the trial of Derek Chauvin all over again. Everyone on the jury knows that. They all know that if they acquit, the city will probably burn, which makes this whole procedure totally invalid. But again, whether the jurors ultimately bow to that pressure or not, the fact that the jury has taken so long to reach a verdict is already a pretty clear sign that the right of self defense doesn't exist anymore in New York City. There are no guarantees in New York that you can defend yourself or others. Even when a violent felon storms your subway car and vows to kill people instead. Especially if you're white, your only guarantee is that a Soros DA will try to destroy your life. That is the reality that the Daniel Penney trial has laid bare. It's an utter travesty of a prosecution. And until all of these DAs are removed from office, we can be sure that it won't be the last one. And that'll do it for the show today. Thanks for listening. Thanks for watching. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.