Megyn Kelly (10:14)
So these two boys were racing as boys in the previous season the year before and had done nothing. Nothing. Again, not that it would make the difference, but I guess you could make the case. It would be better than running with your full testosterone and full male advantage, as they were. And the Connecticut policy is, that's fine, you're good. The girls need to compete against that. That's fair. So race after race, these girls saw just the glorious joy of winning slip away from them as an impossibility. As they looked down at the start and saw two boys getting ready to win. Though they gave it their all. So it goes back to this judge and what happened last week was reading here from just the news, a chastened Judge Chattigny switched his stance and ruled that the amended complaint did plausibly allege disparate treatment under the law based on the female athletes sex, saying the defendants are indeed potentially liable for discrimination under Title 9 and that the plaintiffs may be Indeed, able to recover damages, including attorneys fees and costs, depending on what happens in the course of discovery. Here, listen to this. Unlike in 2021, the judge's ruling is replete with references to biological sex. He even twice used the phrase biological males, which years earlier, he had deemed needlessly provocative in this case. How about that? The girls are asking for these nominal damages. They're looking to get rich off of this. They just want this policy changed and declared unlawful. And they also want more than 40 state and local race track records revised, removing the names of the two transgender athletes from their winning places and replacing them with the names of the female athletes who also competed but did not win. It's justice. This judge was forced. He's been brought to heel by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a very liberal court, everybody. This is like the 9th Circuit almost. That said, you cannot do this. This is huge. And this judge was brought to heel to acknowledge there is such a thing as a biological male. And that is the language you must use in weighing the relative rights in this situation. So Fu, CT and Fu Judge Chattagny, who only was forced to come around to reason and F you to these boys who tried to run as girls and they knew it was unfair. And to the school that didn't create an open category and say, run there. There's two of you. You can run against each other. This is just so wrong on every level. And here's another piece of it you need to know. This case got started under the Trump administration. Number one, the first Trump administration and the Department of Education was on the side of the girls and filed a brief through the doj. The Department of Education and the DOJ were on the side of the girls and filed in support of the girls saying, you have violated Title 9 Connecticut. This is not okay. And then we had a switch in administrations. Biden came in, Miguel Cardona came in and they withdrew all of the government support. The DOJ was out, the DOE was out, and they actually took the other side of this issue. So these girls were left alone with God bless Alliance Defending Freedom to pursue this case in court, which they did. But as you can see, it was an uphill battle, and I'm sure it was an expensive battle. Another reason to donate to Alliance Defending Freedom. And now, I mean, even before Trump gets back in office. But now they've won. They haven't won the whole case. They now have to. They get a trial now and they get to make their case. And that's. That's all they're Entitled to. And that's great. They weren't kicked out just based on the papers by this judge saying, hey, Connecticut law says it's too bad you have to suck it up. So now they get to go forward. And now, thanks to Trump coming back in office, he will make the necessary revisions to bid to Biden's Title 9 changes. He'll reverse them and he will send his DOJ and his Department of Education in to support the girls like these who need help against woke schools, systems, states and judges who want to tell them referring to these kids as biological males is needlessly provocative and you must lose just based on language alone. This is great. This is all going our way. This is before Trump gets in. We got a big ruling out of the Second Circuit back down to this judge who's been humbled and hobbled. And that's what's going to happen to all of you judges who continue to rule the wrong way. And you know what's even more beautiful will be when one of these left wing courts like the 9th Circuit or what have you, rules the other way. And it goes up to the Supreme Court. Oh, I hope it goes up to the Supreme Court because this court will rule in our favor. I realize that Judge Gorsuch cast the deciding vote saying you can't discriminate in the workplace setting against trans people, but he made sure to point out in that opinion that it did not apply to girls sports. That was a separate issue. That was not before the court. We have not lost on that issue before the highest court in the land. And we won't, we will not lose on that issue. I would love to see that go up asap. So it's great. We're, we're winning, ladies and gentlemen. We're winning the side of reason. The normies are restoring order, fairness, safety and justice. Right on, second Circuit. Right on. Okay. There are still a lot of very abnormal, strange people out there. And that leads me to a woman, a writer named Emily Gold, who writes for New York magazine and its publication called the Cut. Now, you may remember this woman. I believe we talked about her piece when it came out about the lure of divorce. In February of 2024, seven years into my marriage, she wrote at the time, I hit a breaking point and had to decide whether life would be better without my husband in it. In this piece, she goes through. This is the old one. I'm going to get to the new one in a sec. She goes through how in the summer of 2022, she lost her mind, her Words. First she thought she was just overwhelmed because life had become difficult. And then it became clear it was more than that. To cope with the stress, I asked my psychiatrist, she writes, to increase the dosage of the antidepressant I'd been on for years. Sometime around then, I started talking too fast and drinking a lot. Drinking felt necessary. She goes on to say she would drink with breakfast, lunch and dinner some days, which she would eat at restaurants, so the drink order didn't seem too unusual. Who doesn't have an aperol spritz on the way home from the gym in the morning? I became convinced, too, that my marriage was over and had been over for years. I spent money like it was water, never budgeting, leaving my husband to make sure we made rent every month. She writes about how they had their last fight after a long day spent at a wedding upstate. I'd been drinking spiked lemonade at lunch alone, then boxed wine during the wedding reception where I couldn't eat any of the food because it all contained wheat. And I have celiac disease. Perfect. Of course. Okay, so she's drinking too much. She's, of course, allergic to wheat. And she has celiac disease. She's depressed and on antidepressants, and she's got a psychiatrist. These are the things we've learned about her so far. She tells her husband it's over. Really over. The definitive moment I'd been waiting for. I had a concrete reason to leave, because her husband, I guess, wasn't paying her enough attention and was giving her some hassle about her finances. My therapist and my psychiatrist. Okay, so it's more than just the psychiatrist. Both urged me, in no uncertain terms to check myself into a psychiatric hospital. It's not going well here for Emily. Therapist, psychiatrist, marriage and disarray. Drinking breakfast, lunch and dinner on an antidepressant. Had to increase the dose. Celiac disease is yet another alleged problem. And then they started her on lithium right away in a meeting with my team of psychiatrists. Now it's a team. They broke the news I had bipolar disorder. They weren't sure which kind. And into the inpatient psych psychiatric facility she went, where she insisted that her mother and her husband were not allowed to visit her. Instead, at some point, she got out and she decided to do couples therapy with the husband. So now we've had a psychiatric institution, a team of psychiatrists, a therapist, an antidepressant, alcohol, morning, noon and night, celiac disease, cutting off the mother, cutting off the husband, and then a reentry by the Husband in couples therapy. My husband would have to forgive me for cheating. Oh, yeah, I forgot. She cheated. She. She cheated on him. He would have to forgive her for doing that and for wasting our money. And I would have to forgive him for treading on my literary territory, our family's life, my own life. He would have to forgive me for having a mental breakdown, leaving him to take care of our family, et cetera. And I would have to forgive him for taking for granted that I would be available on a sick day or to do an early pickup or watch the baby while he wrote about our other child. Okay, this. I read all that because you need to know who Emily Gould is before I tell you the following fact. She is now an advice columnist for New York magazine. Oh, God. This is the same way they make all the kids write about their severe traumas and adverse childhood experiences and how effed up they are in order to admit them into the Ivy Leagues. You write your admissions essay about what a well adjusted kid you are, what a loving family you have. That's taught you to love yourself and America and be open minded to different points of view. You're out. You forget it. But I guarantee you, lithium, inpatient cheating, SSRIs and celiac disease. You sail right in. Welcome to Yale. So Emily is now doing advice columns at the Cut. And that leads me to this particular piece of advice. The headline is, my daughter's New York City Public School teacher supports Trump. Dun, dun, dun. There's the big reveal. Of course, everybody who reads New York magazine has the same reaction, which is, oh, my God. Oh, go on. We understand where this is going. Dear Emily, you tell me who's crazier, the writer or Emily. I'm struggling with how to respond to a recent incident at my daughter's New York City public school. She said her ninth grade English teacher made all the students in the class watch Trump's acceptance speech. Ah. What? The next President of the United States. You say they forced the children to lay eyes on him. And ears, too. And not just that, but take notes on his values and then ask them to pay particular attention to how positively the crowd responded during his speech. I mean, how soon can we fire her? What? They had to watch the next president take notes on the values he was expressing and to pay attention to how the crowd responded. I mean, what have we come to in this country? I was waiting for more. Like, what? Then? Did she say how right he was? How unfairly he's been? Character? No, that's it. I have completed now the list of offenses that this teacher committed. Though the teacher did not say anything directly about how she voted, my daughter said she's a known Trumper, and so I can only assume her attention assuming was in some way to promote his ideas. Promote or just explore? Just present. Because there's a difference present. And to call their attention to the fact that, as the results have made clear, there are millions of people who do support him. Perhaps we'd spend a minute seeing why, what is it he's saying and how are they reacting? That is not promotion, madam. It's presentation and an airing that most of these students will never get. Trust me, I was in the New York City schools. I was there in those privates when my daughter and many of the other students voiced their objections and said they found this exercise upsetting. It's upsetting. The teacher said it was her lesson and she would teach the class the way she wanted. They had to do it. One brave student got up and left the room to go to the principal's office and was not required to go back to class. Of course, the principal was like, you stay here, sweetheart. That is traumatic. Hold me. Hold me. At 14, my daughter is old enough to be politically aware and was excited by the possibility of electing our first female president. She was extremely sad that Kamala lost. Of course, as a family, we share her views. I wish the teacher had given the students the space and time to decompress after such a divisive election, no matter how the kids felt about the outcome. I'm not totally sure how to tell my daughter she needs to respect and listen to this teacher after she acted with so little empathy toward her own students, the way she made them look at and listen to Trump. What do I do now in terms of talking to my daughter about how to tough out the rest of the year in this teacher's class, or if I can make myself take on having the conversation of talking to the school. I just don't know if I'm ready. I don't know if I'm ready for this. I don't. I can't talk about Trump and this incident. Signed. Can't believe I have to deal with this right now. Can't believe I'm going through enough. I've got to shave off my hair, get my big glasses, post on the Internet, find my chastity belt, get the abortion pill. I got. I've got enough to deal with Emily now. Do you think Emily responded, dear, can't believe I have to deal with this right now. You and your Daughter need to toughen up. Diverse viewpoints are what make the world go round. Your teacher didn't push a particular POV on the students.