Ep. 1571 - Debunking John Oliver’s Insane Defense Of Men In Women’s Sports

Today on the Matt Wall Show, John Oliver delivered an epically long monologue in defense of quote-unquote trans women playing in women's sports.

We will dissect his argument in detail.

John Oliver is an insufferable, dishonest, intellectual lightweight, and it's time that somebody put him in his place.

We'll try to do that today.

Also, the Supreme Court says that Trump can continue deporting illegal immigrant gang members.

And there's a major push now for laws mandating maternity leave.

But I think these laws and the conversation around them miss the point entirely.

We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show. Being a husband, father, host of my own show means life never slows down.
Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day. That sounds miserable and time-consuming.
Frankly, I just don't want to do all that. I'd rather go get something deep-fried and unhealthy.
But with Balance of Nature Fruits and Veggies, there's never been a more convenient dietary supplement to ensure you get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables every day with 31 different whole fruits and vegetable ingredients. Balance of Nature takes fruits and vegetables, they freeze-dry them, turn them into a powder, and put them in a capsule.
You take your fruit and veggie capsules every day, and your body knows what to do with them. Go to balanceofnature.com, use code Walsh for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer.
Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice. That's BounceOfNature.com, promo code Walsh.
On his show this week, John Oliver decided to spend 45 minutes defending the idea that men, or trans women as he calls them, should play in women's sports. The trans issue has destroyed the Democrat Party and utterly demolished the left's cultural and political credibility, but they can't let it go.
Transgenderism is a religious conviction. They must stay committed to it, which is disturbing and bizarre and uncomfortable to witness and extremely fortunate for Republicans.
It's also, let's be honest, really funny. I mean, in fact, John Oliver's commitment to the transgenderism bit is by far and away his funniest routine.
It is, in fact, his only funny routine. It's the one time that he lives up to his billing as a comedian, if unintentionally.
So today we're going to pick through Oliver's arguments for trans inclusion in women's sports. We'll go through it piece by piece.
And in the process, we'll see how utterly vapid and hollow and deceitful John Oliver's whole shtick is, and how morally and intellectually bankrupt gender ideology is. And as one of the most morally and intellectually bankrupt people in all of media, it's no wonder that Oliver is so attracted to it.
As we'll see, Oliver trots out all of the standard tropes in his desperate attempt to make gender ideology seem like it isn't insane. He blabbers for 45 minutes, hitting each talking point one by one, punctuated every five or six minutes with something that I guess is supposed to approximate a joke.
But in this whole long diatribe, he never once addresses the core fundamental arguments of the other side, of the sane side. He never once acknowledges, much less makes any attempt to respond to our actual point.
Instead, all we get are the tropes, starting with this one. The issue of trans athletes has become very important to conservatives in general, and Donald Trump in particular.
He talked about it at length in his address to Congress and signed an order titled Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports, which promised to rescind all funds from educational programs that allowed trans women and girls to compete. This issue is an obsession for Republicans.
Last year, they spent over $116 million just on TV ads featuring trans athletes. And the relentless focus on this over the years has had a meaningful impact, with one poll showing more than 6 in 10 adults say trans girls and women should not be allowed to compete in girls and women's sports, including high school and youth levels.
So he starts with the old, why are you so obsessed with this routine, as expected. He then says that this obsession by Republicans is the reason why 6 in 10 adults don't want men and women's sports.
Now, the actual number is more like 8 in 10. But either way, he says that Republicans have waged a relentless propaganda campaign against trans people.
And that is why so many Americans now agree with them. Oliver has this, of course, completely backwards.
John, let me ask you this. What did the poll on trans athletes say 20 years ago? What about 30 years ago? I mean, if the poll numbers today are the result of a recent propaganda push by Republicans, that should be borne out by comparing the poll results on this question today to the poll results 30 years ago.
So what were the polls saying on this question 30 years ago? What do you think, John? Have you checked? Well, don't bother because I can help you. There were no polls on this question 20 years ago or 30 years ago or 40 years ago.
Organized sports have existed in this country for like 170 years, and yet you'll find no polls on the topic of trans women in sports. You'll find no discussion about the subject at all until very, very recently.
Women's sports in particular have existed in some form or another since the late 1800s. And yet again, there was no discussion about whether men who think they're women should be included in women's sports.
So if someone had conducted a poll in, say, 1950 and asked whether men who identify as women should be included in women's sports. So if someone had conducted a poll in, say, 1950, and asked whether men who identify as women should be able to compete in women's sports, what do you think the result would have been, John? Do you think that you would have found at least 60% who responded in the negative? You think we would have gotten at least 60% in 1950 who would say, no, men don't belong in women's sports?

You'd probably find a lot more than 60%, wouldn't you? It would be more like 100%, wouldn't it? And that's in spite of the fact that in the 1950s, there was precisely nobody pushing what you would now call anti-trans propaganda. Republicans weren't talking about the issue at all, and yet everybody agreed.
everyone, literally everybody on earth agreed that if a thing is called women's, it should only be for women. So what does that tell us? Well, it tells us, first of all, that Republicans and conservatives aren't the ones who started this conversation.
We were all living our lives contently without having any discussion about transgenderism or whether men should be in women's sports or bathrooms. Nobody was talking about it.
Nobody was obsessing over it until the trans activists, to include yourself, came along and started screaming in our faces about it. You guys brought up the subject.
You guys started marching and waving your flags and injecting your propaganda into schools and TV shows and films and everywhere else. Your side started giving castration drugs to children.
Your side started listing your pronouns. None of this existed.
This entire subject did not exist until you guys brought it up and started obsessing over it. Those poll numbers you mentioned are not a result of our propaganda, but of yours.
The fact that there are 40% of Americans, according to the poll you mentioned, or 20% if you're using an accurate poll, who actually think that men should compete in women's sports is a result of the relentless propaganda from your side. The fact that it's not right now 100% of people against men and women's sports is a reflection of your propaganda.
Again, if we'd asked this question 50 years ago, there would have been 100% of people on our side. But the question wasn't asked, and it wasn't asked because when 100% of people are on one side, it's not the kind of thing you even think to poll in the first place.
Now, moving on, Oliver next does the thing he always does, where he finds the weakest and most easily mocked version of the counter-argument and then frames the entire rest of his rant around that one single example. Watch.
And let's start by acknowledging many people do have good faith questions about this, even if they're asking them a little clumsily. Here's an example of one of those questions about fairness, coming from a less than ideal source.
Let's say Serena's in her prime. And, and, and a, you know, and, and who knows, we'll make up the person, right? So, you know, that's something.
Let's not make up the person. Let's say that Rafa Nadal has some issue, or wants to transition, and wins the Wimbledon final, or somebody wins the 100-meter dash at the Olympics.
I think that's a net negative. Now, clearly, when it comes to questions of right and wrong in sports,

Lance Armstrong might be the last person you'd call just after the 1990 Chicago White Sox and the ear chunk that Mike Tyson bit off. Now, if you wanted to find an example of somebody making

the case against men and women's sports, you have literally thousands of options to choose from.

Thousands and thousands of people have made this case on camera. Female athletes, biologists, doctors, highly credentialed scientific experts in any number of related fields.
But John sifted through all of that and went with Lance Armstrong. Because Lance Armstrong is infamous for cheating in a sport.
Now, I would say that probably about 99.9999% of all the people who have made the case against men and women's sports are not themselves famous for cheating in a sport. But Oliver went searching for the one person who was, and he uses the silly hypothetical offered by Armstrong, Rafael Nadal suddenly transitioning to a woman, as the framing mechanism for the entire rest of his argument.
So Oliver has chosen the absolute weakest version of the opposing argument offered by the weakest possible spokesman, and that will be the only argument he responds to the whole rest of the way. Now, of course, even the weakest version of our argument offered by the weakest spokesman is still totally devastating to John's side.
Our weakest argument is made of steel compared to the flimsy fantasy land nonsense that you hear from the pro-trans side. Armstrong is, in fact, correct.
If all it takes for a man to be a woman is to identify as one, then if Nadal or any other championship level male athlete identified as a female, he would now be a female by your logic. There's nothing stopping him from dominating women's sports or women's tennis like Shaquille O'Neal in his prime playing basketball against a bunch of nine-year-olds.
The point isn't that Nadal is actually likely to do this. It's that the policy that John Oliver advocates for and the position that he takes would make that sort of absurdity possible, which tells us that it's an absurd policy.
But Oliver is determined to miss the point, of course, which he continues to do here. Trans women don't transition for sports.
No one has ever said, oh, yeah, I think I'd like to be a woman so I can do well in women's sports. When you go through a gender transition, you lose so many things in life.
My own mother said she never wanted to speak to me again. You know, I lost friends, family, got divorced.
You'd go through all of that just to win a medal in sports? No. Trans people transition because it's the only way that we can live happily.
Right. No one says I'm going to transition just for the sake of sports.
Oh, they don't? Well, first of all, John, how do you know that? I mean, there are many examples of mediocre male athletes who, after a while, after, you know, not succeeding against the men, suddenly discover their latent female identity. Leah Thomas is just one of many examples.
How do you know that the fact that he could go from the middle of the pack to first by a mile isn't what motivated him to make the switch? You know, that trans sport scientist that we saw there says that the social cost of transitioning is too high. He says that he personally lost his marriage and his family when he transitioned.
In other words, he willingly blew up his marriage and family for the sake of living out his fantasy of womanhood. What does that tell us? Well, it tells us that he's extremely selfish.
It tells us by his own admission that trans people will do anything to feel affirmed. They'll pay any cost.
They'll hurt anyone. I mean, that's what he just told us.
He hurt his own family. So would they be willing to hurt female athletes for the sake of being affirmed? I mean, the argument seems to be

that trans-identified people would never transition just to succeed in sports because they're too selfish for that. But I'm not sure that logic really tracks.
And at any rate, none of this matters. None of this is even remotely related to the actual point.
Okay, the reason for their, quote, transition is totally irrelevant.

It does not matter. It makes no difference.
Nothing that John has said to this point, nothing even comes close to actually addressing our arguments. And that trend will continue with this next part.
It is obviously true that on average,

cisgender men and post-pubescent boys

have some specific athletic performance advantages,

though the relative size of that advantage

also depends on the sport and the event in swimming.

For instance, male athletic performance advantage

is roughly 13% in the 50-meter freestyle,

but less than 6% in the 1,500-meter free,

which is still clearly significant. But in general, there's a lot of overlap in the average performance ranges of men and women.
Basically, it is not the case that any man is going to be stronger or more athletic than every woman. It's not the case that any man is stronger and more athletic than every woman, says John Oliver.
And in saying this, he has expertly knocked down and dismantled an argument that literally no one on earth at any point anywhere has ever made. Nobody claims that every man is stronger than every woman.
John Oliver himself is proof of that. I mean, he would lose an arm wrestling contest against my 11-year-old daughter.
It's true that scrawny, pathetically weak men do exist in the world. We're looking at one of them, but that's not the point.
The point about athletic advantages is that on average, men are significantly, not slightly, significantly stronger and faster. This is because men and women are built differently.
Women on average have 20% less muscle mass in their legs, smaller fast twitch muscle fibers, smaller lungs, smaller hearts, shorter legs, much more estrogen, much less testosterone, a lesser capacity to produce oxygen when they're exercising, exerting themselves. That's why a team of high school boys could beat the women's national team in soccer.
It's why the top 10 male finishers in nearly every Olympic event always beat, always beat, always beat the top 10 female finishers in the same event. In fact, the top 25 or 50 or 100 male finishers will beat the top 10 females.
It's why you could find hundreds of examples just like this one. Andrea Yearwood and Terry Miller, both males, finished first and second in the 55-meter dash at the Women's State Indoor Track and Field Championships in Connecticut a few years ago.
Miller also finished first in the 300-. Miller won the gold with a time of 38.9 seconds.
Second place was a full second behind him, which is a near eternity in track time. But if Miller had raced against the boys in the same event, he would have been about two seconds behind the guy who finished in 25th place.
So to reiterate, his winning time against the girls would have put him far outside of the top 25 in the men's field. The worst guy on the men's track team can instantly become the best person on the girls team.
That's the point. Or at least it's the point about the athletic advantages.
But even that point is not the point. John Oliver still has not addressed the actual point.
Here she is explaining what we do and don't know at this point. It is undoubtedly true that trans women will maintain advantages in some sports, probably not so much in endurance sports, but in size and strength sports.
Trans women will also have some physiological disadvantages. Our larger frames are now being powered by reduced muscle mass and reduced aerobic capacity.
And that can lead to disadvantages in terms like quickness, recovery, endurance, things that maybe aren't quite as obvious as being bigger and stronger. Right.
Bigger and stronger bodies are not automatically advantaged in every scenario. I mean, put The Rock in a pure bar class and see what happens.
I mean, we know what would happen. He'd take a video of himself, captioning it, mad respect to these mamas, everyone go see Moana 2, and try to use it to sell its tequila before eating 13,000 pancakes and drinking a cow? We know what would happen.
But the degree of difference here matters, because we expect a certain amount of difference in athletics. Taller basketball players are expected to compete against shorter ones, faster soccer players compete against slower ones.
Michael Phelps was allowed to compete with other swimmers despite being part dolphin. And crucially, none of the studies I've mentioned so far bear much relevance to what these new laws target, which is youth sports, usually of all ages.
And the research there is even more scant. We have no research about how being trans or undergoing gender-affirming treatment impacts athletic performance in teens.
Now, um, and you notice, there's one example of example of, you know, an area where women supposedly would have an athletic advantage over men is an aerobics class. He could even come up with an actual competition, like an actual sporting event, where he would say that women would have an advantage over men because there isn't one.
So instead, he goes with, oh, well, if The Rock was competing in a class at a gym. And he tries to write it off, of course, with the dumb joke there about The Rock.
But again, the point is he couldn't even come up with an example of an actual sporting event in events where there's a competition between people where the man would not have a clear advantage. Now, John goes on for a while about the dearth of studies dealing with trans, quote unquote, trans women in female sports.
He's perplexed that there haven't been more studies on the subject, but of course, trans women are men and there is ample scientific evidence and many, many studies demonstrating the physiological differences and athletic advantages enjoyed by men. He wants a study that specifically studies trans women as if the fact that a man sees himself as a woman will in and of itself fundamentally impact his biology, but that is not the case, which is why very few people have ever bothered to study it.
Okay? No credible scientist would ever say, hey, you know, we know that men are faster and stronger than women, but what about men who think they're women? Are they also faster and stronger? Well, that's not going to be studied by any credible person because their perception of themselves as women obviously does not alter their biology. We don't need a study to show us that, John.
Okay, do you need a study to find out if, well, we heard if you believe you can fly, you can really fly. Maybe we should do a study to find out if that's true.
Maybe we should find some insane people who think they can fly and watch them jump off of buildings to see if that really pans out. No, if you're not insane, you don't need a study for that, do you? So what John is really talking about here are men who have undergone a medical transition, quote unquote, were being told that after transition, the physical advantages are diminished, supposedly.
Now, does this mean that John Oliver is saying that only male athletes who've taken the drugs should be allowed to compete against women? No, he's not even saying that. At least he doesn't appear to be saying that.
His only real argument in favor of men and women's sports is that supposedly men who've taken the transition drugs become weaker and slower. But he actually doesn't follow that argument through to its conclusion and say that only men who've transitioned should compete.
So again, this whole thing is a red herring. It's irrelevant.
Also, John, why are men weaker and slower after transitioning. Why do they have less muscle mass? Well, John, because the drugs are destroying their bodies.
John Oliver is here proudly demonstrating that medical transition destroys the human body. It has a destructive effect on the physiology of the men who undergo these quote unquote treatments.
John seems to have little curiosity about that fact. He doesn't linger on it or think about it very hard.
Instead, he just says, well, look at that. Their bodies have been destroyed.
Now they're just like women. He doesn't see any problem with equating a destroyed male body to a female body.
He doesn't see any problem with giving people supposed medical treatments that are designed to physically harm them. And he doesn't even really think that these treatments are relevant to the question of whether or not a trans woman is actually a woman or not.
So that brings us to the argument that John has spent this entire diatribe studiously ignoring. The reason why our side actually opposes men in women's sports is, as I explained during the hearing in California last week, very simply because men are not women.
No matter how great or small their advantage, no matter if they've transitioned or not, no matter how they self-identify, men are not women. The fundamental claim of the quote unquote trans woman that he is a woman is false.
It is objectively, scientifically, logically, empirically, in every way and from every angle false. Now, if there was a 30-year-old adult who wanted to play in a t-ball league against six-year-olds,

we would all, even John Oliver, I think, would tell him no.

Now, but what if this 30-year-old was really unathletic?

I mean, conceivably, there are 30-year-olds out there who are less athletic and maybe

even weaker than six-year-olds.

I mean, it's theoretically possible that could be the case. Would that change your mind? What if he was very short? What if it was a 30-year-old who said, well, I'm just as short as a child? What if this 30-year-old would be only the 10th best t-ball player on the t-ball team? Would we let him play against the six-year-olds then?

No. Why? Well, because he's not six years old.
This is a league for six-year-olds. He's not six.
And so that's why he's not allowed in the league. Now, what if the 30-year-old thought he was six? What if he identified as six? What if he spent his whole life and had built his entire personality around the fantasy that he is six? Would we let him play in the six-year-old league in that case? No.
In fact, we would be even less accepting of him on the six-year-old team Because not only is he still not actually six years old, he's also deranged. And the fact that he's deranged doesn't make him six, and it doesn't make us any more eager to let him play with six-year-olds.
In fact, it has the opposite effect. And the same logic applies to women's sports.
Men are not women. Men who think they are women are still not women and are, if anything, even less fit to be competing against them.
This is the argument that John Oliver won't address. He will talk and talk and talk about the issue, but he won't go anywhere near the actual point.
The point that so-called trans women are not actually women.

That's our whole argument, John. And I dare you, I dare you to spend even five minutes addressing it.

Spend five minutes on your show, five minutes explaining how quote unquote trans women are actually women. That is your fundamental

proposition. That is your fundamental argument.
Spend five minutes defending it. Okay, you've spent plenty of time on this topic.
I think it's time you actually get to the point. Now let's get to our five headlines.
Have you ever come across someone saying that capitalism is evil or something similar? Maybe in a video online, on TV, or just talking with someone? What was your reaction if you did? When did capitalism become such a hot-button issue anyway? Well, it seems like people have such strong opinions about it and very little understanding of capitalism as a whole. Luckily, if you're looking to expand your knowledge and horizons on a broad range of topics, including subjects like capitalism, Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses.
That's right, completely free. You can learn about the United States Constitution, explore stories from the book of Genesis, discover the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or even study the history of the ancient Christian church.
I do recommend watching their new course, Understanding Capitalism, in just seven lectures. You'll learn about the role of profit and loss, how human nature shapes our economy, and why capitalism depends on private property rights, the rule of law, and freedom.
You'll also discover why capitalism actually encourages morality rather than undermining it, like today's varying political agendas would have you believe. Understanding economics and capitalism empowers individuals and societies to make informed decisions, evaluate policy impacts, anticipate market changes, and ultimately create more prosperous communities.
Go right now to hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to enroll in this course. Understanding capitalism, there's no cost.
It's easy to get started. That's hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to enroll for free.
Hillsdale.edu slash Walsh. All right, well, just a few things here.

Big news for the Daily Wire.

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the Trump administration to use the 1798

Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal alien gang members from the United States.

The order from the high court reverses a lower court ruling from U.S. District Judge James

Boesberg.

Boesberg temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the Aliens Enemies Act in a case involving five Venezuelan nationals. The ruling is a significant win for the Trump administration has leveraged the 18th century law to expedite the removal of criminal gang members of the United States.
The Trump administration has likened the alien gangs present United States to a foreign invasion or predatory incursion that justifies the law's use. The Supreme Court ruled in the case five to four with all but Justice Amy Coney Barrett from the court's conservative wing, ruling in the majority.
And then Barrett dissented. And so the deportations will continue.
Amy Coney Barrett dissents, joins the liberal justices again. I think at this point, to call Amy Coney Barrett a member of the conservative wing is probably being quite generous to her.
As others have pointed out, not to jump back into the gender wars, but we now have a very interesting dynamic on the court, and when you look at a photo of the four dissenters, you can't help but notice it's all the women. The four women are the ones who all dissented.
It's the women all saying that it's mean to deport illegal alien gang members. Probably not a coincidence, which is the argument, by the way.
That's the whole argument against it. The whole argument against, because that's what we're talking about, just to be entirely clear.
We're talking about, as I'm sure you understand, deporting illegal alien. So really right there, that should be all we need to know that this policy is perfectly appropriate.
Deporting illegal aliens.

Like, you could stop your sentence right there, and I'm sold.

I don't, oh, they're illegal.

Okay, yes, sounds great.

But then we continue, and it's not even illegal alien gang members is who we're deporting and sending to, in some cases, prisons in foreign countries, like in El Salvador. The only argument against it is that it's mean.
Now, they'll use more words than that. If you're to read the dissenting opinion from the women, I'm sure it probably doesn't just say, well, this is mean.
I don't like it. But that is their argument.
That's the entire, it's mean. They don't, it makes them feel uncomfortable.
It's a mean thing to do. And, and I just don't, I don't like the way that feels.
That doesn't feel right. You know, that, that makes me, it makes me, it makes me, it makes me sad.
It makes me feel sad. That's their entire argument.
But of course, this ruling is right. The men got it right anyway.
And it's difficult to even spend. We've spent plenty of time on this issue.
But you reach a point where what else is there to say about it? yes, there are illegal alien gang members. Get them out of the country.

I don't know how else to explain it.

Like, if there's anyone left out there who still doesn't get it or hasn't been convinced, and apparently there are. I mean, there are four of them on the Supreme Court.
But anyone out there who has not yet been convinced that we should get illegal alien gang members and murderers and child rapists out of the country, well, I don't think there's anything else that can be said to persuade them. So maybe we'll just leave it there for now.
You know, I keep saying that I'll stop. I will stop playing Jasmine Crockett clips on the show, but then she keeps saying things that are so baffling and their stupidity that I have no choice but to play them.
I can't help myself. I just can't.
I'm thinking now I probably have to embrace it and go the other direction and have an official weekly Jasmine Crockett segment. Just stop fighting against the riptide and go with it.
I don't know, but either way, this is pretty extraordinary Here she is Talking about illegal immigration Making her argument Her argument in favor of it And listen to what she says So I had to go around the country And educate people about What immigrants do for this country Or the fact that we are a country of immigrants. Right, right.
The fact is, ain't none of y'all trying to go and farm right now. Okay, so I'm lying.
Raise your hands. You're not.
You're not. We done picking cotton.
We are. You can't pay us enough to find a plantation.
We done picking cotton, she says. So this is Jasmine Crockett openly admitting that they want illegal aliens in this country as slave labor.
She came right out and said it. Just came right out.
Never mind the fact that she's wrong about her basic claim, you know, that this claim of, well, they're doing jobs that Americans won't do. There are plenty of non-illegals who do farm work.
There are plenty of American citizens who would work on farms, who do work on farms.

It's certainly not correct to say that American citizens are done working on farms, so we need to bring the illegal aliens in to do it for us. That is not true.
But regardless, we now have Democrats just coming out and admitting that this is about slave labor. She even says plantations.
I don't want to be on the plantations. Let's put them on them.
So when I say that this is an argument for slavery, I don't say that just as some kind of gotcha or some sort of joke. I mean, this is literally the argument for slavery.
Like, if you've ever wondered how anyone could have ever supported slavery, how the whole world supported slavery for thousands of years, this is it, basically. You don't have to wonder anymore.
It's no longer a mystery. Jasmine just said it.
She's saying that we need illegal immigrant labor because immigrants are fit for this kind of work, but the rest of us aren't. It's work that we don't want to do, and we're too good for that, but the immigrants are fit for it, and so they should do it.
These people, illegal immigrants, are suited to work the fields. For them, it's a blessing, right? For them, it's a great opportunity.
It's a blessing to be able to do it. For us, it's drudgery.
It's beneath us. Well, again, that is the argument for slave labor.
That's it right there. So if you agree with that, then congratulations, you're pro-slavery.
And the good news, here's the good news, okay? The good news is you're not alone. I mean, this is actually one area where your views, if you're on Jasmine Crockett's site, your views are more traditional than mine.
That's the funny thing. The people who are opposed to illegal immigration, like me, actually have, at least on this point about labor, we actually have liberal views on the subject.
We are the big libs. We're the woke ones saying that we shouldn't have an underclass of servants who we import to do menial labor that we don't want to do.
Okay, we're saying we don't want that. So on this point, we're a bunch of libs.
Historically speaking, we're a bunch of libs because pretty much every society in history has traditionally had a setup like that. It's just that in the past, we called them slaves.
We called them indentured servants. There have been different labels, different ways of different systems in place, but it's always the same idea.
Now we call them undocumented workers, but it's always been the same basic concept. It's the concept that Jasmine Crockett just laid out, that we've got all this media labor.
We don't want to do it. It sucks for us to do it.
Let's find these people over here. They're kind of beneath us, and for them, they're suited to this.
So on the right, we are breaking with tradition on the slavery issue. And on the left, they have found the one single issue where they embrace tradition.
This is the one time where people on the left are embracing tradition, where they're taking a stand for the traditional way of doing things. This is it with slavery.
Because again, slavery, I'll admit, as a defender of tradition generally, I'll admit, slavery is very traditional. It's perhaps the most traditional institution that you could name.
But I generally defend tradition. Not all traditions are good.
There are some bad ones, and that's one of them. That's probably the first one that comes to mind.
And it's just very funny to me that the left, they throw out every tradition except that one. That's the only one they want to keep.
They look at our ancestors and they say, those morons were wrong about everything except slave labor. They had that one right.
It's, I don't know, you have to laugh about it at least I do I guess I have a morbid sense of humor but that is what they want slave labor okay I've had let's see here I've had this story in my queue for a few days I haven't mentioned it because a part of me feels like we've dunked on Disney quite enough, but then I realize there's no enough when it comes to dunking on Disney. How is it possible to dunk too much on Disney? So another Disney actor came out, this was last week, attacking the fans.
And so this is just never ending. This is a constant thing.
It never ends. And just to emphasize that point, if you were to go through like a non-exhaustive list of all the Disney actors and employees and executives who in recent years have attacked their own fan base.
You've got the Star Wars director,

Rian Johnson or Rian Johnson,

I don't know how you pronounce his name,

mocking fans, implying they were sexist for criticizing his incoherent plot lines.

You've got Disney's former CEO, Bob Chapek,

saying that the conservative voters in Florida

don't support fundamental human rights.

You've got Amandla Stenberg, who was in The Acolyte, attacking her critics as racist. Jody Turner-Smith played one of the lesbian witches in The Acolyte, also said that critics of her show were racist.
The lesbian And showrunner of The Acolyte had a similar idea. You had Kathleen Kennedy, president of Lucasfilm, talking about the male-dominated fan base that was unfairly attacking the various actors.
Of course, Rachel Zegler, the most recent one, declaring, among other things, that Trump supporters should burn in hell for all eternity. Talking about how she doesn't, you know, that the original Snow White story is very creepy and all that.
We're all familiar with it. So into that mix jumps John Boyega, who played the stormtrooper Finn in the latest Star Wars trilogy.
And he just participated in a new Apple documentary called Number One on the Call Sheet,

Black Leading Men in Hollywood.

And this interview, Boyega adopts an accent

that's intended to mock white people.

And he says that white people are uncomfortable

with a black man being cast in a leading role in Star Wars.

And he starts attacking the fans of Star Wars. And let's listen to that.
They're pandering. Let me tell you, Star Wars always had the vibe of being in the most whitest elite space.
This franchise is so white that it's like a black person existing in that was something. And you can always tell it something when some Star Wars fans try to say, well, we had Lando Calrissian and had Samuel L.
Jackson. It's like telling me how many cookie chips are on the cookie dough.
I'm like, they just scattered that in there, bro. They're okay with us playing the best friend.
But once we touch their heroes, once we lead, once we trailblaze, it's like, oh my God, it's just a bit too much. Yes, he just used the phrase most whitest elite space to describe Star Wars.
And he says that that's always how you could describe Star Wars. Now, admittedly, I'm not someone who could be described as a committed fan of the Star Wars franchise.
But anyone who's ever met a Star Wars fan knows that elite is not exactly the adjective that comes to mind. And I don't say that as an insult.
It's just when I think of Star Wars fans, I don't think of elitists. That's just not the description that jumps to mind.
We're not talking about yachting or truffle hunting here. No one is racing their vintage cars to private theaters to watch Star Wars, or at least some people might be, but they're certainly not in the majority.
In fact, Star Wars is probably the most popular franchise on the planet. Billions of people have enjoyed Star Wars at one time or another.
So I actually can't

think of anything less elite than being a Star Wars fan, right? It's one of the most non-elite descriptions that you could give someone as a Star Wars fan. But this is how he describes them and starts attacking the fans as racist.

And as usual, not understanding or

pretending not to understand the criticism. Nobody has a problem with watching a black actor

on screen. So when you have actors like John Boyega, they get criticized.
And I think the

criticisms of, first of all, as far as I can understand it, the criticisms of the series that he was in, the trilogy that he was in, it's really gotten, the fans weren't really attacking him. I know there were a lot of fans that didn't like the movies, thought that they were poorly written, thought it had a lot of problems with the way the movies were made.
I know there were fans who thought that his character was underwritten and underutilized.

But that's one of the funny things here is the fans were not really attacking him.

And he just went after them while, again, not understanding the criticism.

Nobody has a problem with a black actor.

So this idea that, well, yeah, as soon as a black guy is cast in a film,

suddenly it's woke. No, that's not what anyone is saying.
Okay, Denzel Washington has never had any trouble getting work. No one has a problem with Denzel Washington being the lead actor in a film.
We have a problem when diversity is forced into a film for its own sake. That's the issue.
When you're watching a movie and you could tell that they've cast the characters in a certain way, just in order to make a point about diversity. People have a problem with that.

There have been these reports recently, and I haven't talked about it because I don't know if

it's actually true. And I'm hoping against hope that it isn't, but there have been reports and

rumors about Meryl Streep being cast as Aslan, the lion in Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe, that Greta Gerwig is going to be doing her own version of it, I think for Netflix or Apple or one of those. And there have been reports that Meryl Streep is going to be cast to play this character.
And if they do that, they have already sunk this remake that they're making. They've

already sunk it. People are going to hate it for good reason.
Now, Meryl Streep obviously is not

black, but as a female, that is diversity. You are trying to diversify this character,

and you're doing it to make a point, and you're doing it in a way that doesn't make any sense.

Because the lion and the lion witch in the wardrobe is a male lion. He's the Christ figure of the film, right? In this allegory, in this story that I think everyone understands is supposed to be an allegory, he's the Christ figure.
So that makes him a male. He's a male lion with a mane.
So either you're going to get rid of the mane and have it be a female lion and get rid of the Christ allegory entirely, or what? You're going to still have the king of the jungle look with the mane, but it'll be a female voice coming out. That's the kind of diversity people have a problem with.
People don't have a problem with Meryl Streep being cast in things. Meryl Streep has been casted in dozens and dozens of films, and no one ever has a problem with it.
They will have a problem with that. Why is it? Because that's diversity for its own sake, which is already annoying.
And in this case, you're doing it in a way that undermines the fundamental point of the story. And that's what people have an issue with.
Have you checked your home title lately? Most homeowners never do. But with the growing amount of digital scams targeting property owners, it's more important than ever.
With modern technology, criminals have found an alarming way to steal your home equity. They simply forge your signature on a document, add a fake notary stamp, pay a small county fee, and just like that, your home title gets transferred without your knowledge.
Once they control your title, they can take out loans against your equity or even sell your property entirely. The worst part, you might not discover anything's wrong until you receive an unexpected collection notice or foreclosure letter.
Don't wait until it's too late. Take a moment right now to verify your home title status and protect what's likely your biggest investment.
Use promo code Walsh at hometitlelock.com to make sure your title is still in your name. You'll also get a free title history report plus a free 14-day trial of their million dollar triple lock protection.
That's 24-7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts to any changes. And if fraud should happen, they'll spend up to $1 million to fix it.
Go to hometitlelock.com now. Use promo code Walsh.
That's hometitlelock.com, promo code Walsh. Mainstream media thinks you're too dumb to see through their lies.
They twist the narrative and manipulate the headlines, bury the truth.

We know better.

It's Daily Wire.

We bring you the facts, no filter, no spin, and you get in on the conversation.

Join the live chat during our daily shows.

I'm 100% uncensored, ad-free, and packed with fans who actually think for themselves.

My producers are also in the chat daily to add to the conversation.

Get the news the way that it should be, honest, fearless, and without an agenda.

Your voice matters.

Be a part of it.

Join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Here's a mildly depressing anecdote from this country's recent history that you're probably not familiar with. For several decades, no one, including government officials, lawyers, leading academics, could figure out how many laws existed in the United States.
In 1982, the Department of Justice launched a two-year effort to count all of the laws in the U.S. Code by hand across more than 20,000 pages of text.
They ended up guessing that the number of federal laws was somewhere around 3,000, but they admitted they weren't exactly sure. Then the American Bar Association tapped in and attempted to conduct a computerized search.
Their only conclusion was that the number was higher than 3,000. But beyond that, they had no idea.
So they gave up as well. All we know for sure is that for whatever reason, as time goes on, the number of laws increases.
Sort of like the number of federal bureaucrats, the number of Haitian nationals living in Springfield. Inevitably, from year to year, you see more and more of them.
New laws are passed, and in some small way, and sometimes in significant ways, your freedoms are further restricted. This is a given.
You're not supposed to question it or even notice it, really. And there are a lot of examples of this particular phenomenon.
Here's one of them. Without a constant stream of new laws, the grand progressive experiment would collapse overnight.

At its core, progressivism always and everywhere attempts to use the law to override human nature. As we discussed before, civil rights law is being used to force police and fire departments to select dishonest and physically unfit candidates, even though everyone intuitively knows it's a bad idea.
The point of hate speech laws in the UK is to discourage British citizens from noticing that hordes of migrants from Nigeria and Zimbabwe aren't actually a net positive for their society. In states like California and Minnesota, laws force women to compete against men, something that the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize as insane, and on and on.
When they're not happy with natural human behavior, progressives simply make a new law in a futile attempt to reprogram everyone or to paper over some aspect of the human condition that interferes with their broader agenda. And one of the more egregious recent examples of this tactic involves maternity leave policies.
This has come up on the show in the past week or so in the context of several lawmakers who just shut down business in Congress for a week in order to campaign for better maternity accommodations for themselves. Specifically, they want the right to vote from home after they've had a child, even though it's both unconstitutional and insulting to their constituents.
But this is a much larger issue than a handful of entitled lawmakers. There's now a nationwide effort underway to drastically expand maternity leave policies on the theory that women need to spend more time at home with their children after giving birth.

These efforts would grant employees paid leave, which isn't currently guaranteed by federal law,

and they'd significantly expand the lengths of these leaves of absence as well.

More and more states are joining in, and now there's talk of an expansion of maternity leave at the federal level. In Alabama, for example, AL.com reports, Governor Kay Ivey has signed into law a paid parental leave bill on Wednesday, which will give state employees paid time off after the birth of a child.
This law will give Alabama female employees eight weeks of paid parental leave in the event of a birth, stillbirth, or miscarriage of a child, male employees would receive two weeks of leave under the same circumstances. And with this law, Alabama

became the 39th state in the country to offer paid maternal leave to state employees and teachers.

Now, at the outset, it needs to be said that these kinds of laws create, and when they're

in particular applied to businesses, to the private sector, which there's a big push for this now,

they create significant costs for businesses and their employees, particularly small businesses. They are then oppressive, often onerous, ultimately unsustainable.
When a woman is entitled to receive a salary for performing no work whatsoever for months on end, sometimes multiple times in the span of a few years, someone else has to make up the loss. And depending on how

the state system works, the company or the taxpayer has to pay for the worker's salary, either directly or through insurance. Now, to be clear, I think it's great if companies offer maternity leave.
I am in favor of that. If I ran a company, I would offer maternity leave if I could.
But that's the point, that if I could. That's very different from saying the government should mandate it, because not every company can afford whatever arbitrary amount of leave the government might require them to offer.
Not every business is the same. They can't all absorb that cost or afford to pay an employee to not work for a few months or more, or afford to pay someone to come in and replace that employee and then get rid of them when the other employee comes back.
Not every company can afford that, even though I think it would be great ideally if they did. But if you turn on any news broadcast that's discussing this issue, you'll find that these drawbacks are not often presented.
Instead, maternity leave bills are inevitably presented as a common sense opportunity to help women bond with their children. And anyone who opposes the idea is portrayed as heartless and misogynistic.
Good Morning America, for example, just posted this viral footage of a mother complaining about the end of her three months of maternity leave. She's clearly upset about the fact that she's going to have to leave her twins.
Upset for good reason. And she concludes by demanding maternity leave of more than a year.
Watch. So today is my last day of maternity leave and I go back to work tomorrow and I just feel like I haven't had enough time with them I know I got longer than a lot of women get with three months but it just doesn't I just don feel ready.
It's just like such an abrupt change that you're with your babies all the time. And then you pick them up from daycare and you might just get a few hours.
I just felt like so disconnected to them. I would, sorry, I'm gonna get emotional.
I would just like cry, like they're gonna forget me. Or I would come home from work and like feel like they forgot me because they didn't like smile right away when they saw me.
And I know they like didn't, but it's really hard to convince yourself that they don't. I also love my career.
I am proud of what I do, but there's always that mom guilt of you're not giving enough time to your kids. So many people from so many other countries like chiming in with their maternity and paternity leaves are.
A lot of the European countries in Canada are 12 plus months for women. That's kind of more like the message I would love to like talk about and get across is that could be a lot better.
Now we can all see that this woman is clearly devastated that she has to leave her babies and return to work for good reason. And if you scroll through the comments, you'll find that most people are responding by demanding that we pass a law that would give her more time to stay home.
And as you saw in the video, she suggests adopting the system they have in Canada, where mothers can apparently take more than a year off of work, and the employers are mandated to provide that. But none of these people address the question of what happens when that time is up.
Unless we're giving 18 years of paid maternity leave, then eventually the leave expires. And that means that the woman is going back to the office.
That will be the end result no matter what with this system. If you give her nine months or 12 months or 18 months, that separation will not be easier.
It will not be better for her or her child at the end of it. If anything, it'll be worse.
We can't solve this problem with a few more months of maternity leave. The fundamental problem, the one that progressive laws attempt to paper over, is that the mother is leaving her children in the first place.
What we're writing off as a defect in current policy on maternity leave is actually just an inevitable consequence of having so many women in the workplace. This is exactly why most societies throughout history have said that it's better for women to stay home and raise their children.
But we want to have our cake and eat it too. We want to live in a feminist utopia where there are just as many women working as men, if not more.
But we also want to make sure that neither mother nor child experiences the emotional consequences or for the child developmental consequences of being separated from each other. But that's not possible.
So the real solution is to try to move to a place as a society where more women are staying home with their children once they become mothers. And nobody wants to say that, so we talk about maternity leave instead.
We look at a video of a woman crying. She's devastated she has to leave her children.
And we all respond by saying, well, the solution here is to give her four more months. What does that solve at the end of it? What is better at the end of it? She leaves, so let's give her a year.
Now she's leaving when the kid is a year old. Both kids are a year old.
In what way is that better? In what way has that solved the problem of the fact that she's leaving the child? Okay, it's time to stop dodging the real issue. Everybody watching the clip immediately understands at a basic human level that those children need their mother.
The idea that the children desperately need their mother for 12 months, but then not at all after that is ridiculous. Now, maybe this mother is forced to go to work because of her financial circumstances.
She does hint at that elsewhere in the video. That might be the case.
I don't know her financial situation. But the point is that that's clearly not the ideal outcome, whether it's her choice or not.
Efforts to expand maternity leave, like so many other failed progressive experiments, are a doomed attempt to rewrite human nature instead of giving people, in this case mothers, what they actually want and need. In the end, that will lead to more unhappy mothers, more confused children, and yes, more pointless laws that we can't even count.
And that is why the people trying to dodge the real problem by focusing on maternity leave are today canceled. That'll do it for the

show today. Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.

Godspeed.