Ep 264 ｜ The Supreme Court's LGBTQ Ruling： Redefining Sex ｜ Guest： Carrie Severino
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
174.68523
Summary
In this episode, we discuss the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County regarding discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Is it okay to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. I hope everyone has had a wonderful week so
00:00:15.900
far and that you enjoyed Monday's episode with my two friends, Virgil Walker and Daryl
00:00:21.400
Harrison from the Just Thinking Podcast. A lot of you reached out to me saying how much
00:00:25.920
you appreciated the interview and just the insight that they gave. I highly recommend
00:00:31.000
checking out the episode if you haven't already. Today, I actually have another interview. So I
00:00:35.380
have a lot of interviews lined up because we're talking about topics that I am very interested
00:00:39.980
in getting other people's insight on. You guys know that I love to do my monologues and I love
00:00:44.940
to give my analysis and of course I'm going to do that. But there are a lot of experts out there
00:00:50.380
on the subjects that we are discussing that I think offer even better and closer insight into
00:00:56.420
the issues that we are discussing. Today, we are going to discuss the Supreme Court case or really
00:01:01.860
the set of cases under the one name Bostock versus Clayton County that have to do with discrimination
00:01:11.980
in the workplace based on sexual orientation and so-called gender identity. That was decided on
00:01:18.740
Monday. A conservative Justice Gorsuch actually wrote the majority opinion. It was a 6-3 decision
00:01:25.700
saying that the 1964 Civil Rights Act that said that you cannot discriminate in the workplace
00:01:32.320
based on sex also applies to sexual orientation and so-called gender identity. And of course, this is
00:01:41.720
not the decision that contextualists, that traditionalists when it comes to constitutional
00:01:47.660
interpretation wanted, not just because of the interpretation itself, but the principle and
00:01:54.340
the nature of legislating from the bench. That's what we're going to discuss today. And I am going to
00:02:00.800
discuss that with Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network. She follows the Supreme Court closely
00:02:06.860
and she has an interest in and brings awareness to the decisions that the court makes and has an interest
00:02:15.500
in justices that follow the Constitution. And so we are going to analyze that case today and look at
00:02:23.380
what it means. So we're going to talk about this Supreme Court case. And what I just want to make clear
00:02:28.460
before we actually get into the conversation with Carrie Severino, and we'll discuss this with her as
00:02:33.420
well, but you probably saw a lot of celebratory reactions to the decision of the Supreme Court saying,
00:02:41.120
yes, of course, this is right. People shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation
00:02:45.900
and transgender identity. The issue is not whether or not we believe that it's right to discriminate on
00:02:53.620
the basis of sexual orientation and transgender identity. I would say the vast majority of employers,
00:02:59.520
the vast majority of people in the workplace believe that you shouldn't discriminate based on
00:03:04.140
these things and will not discriminate based on these things. I would say the vast majority of employers
00:03:09.240
want the person who is best for the job, no matter who they are married to, no matter what they dress
00:03:17.880
like. However, the issue is not whether or not it's okay to discriminate, but whether or not this is the
00:03:25.940
Supreme Court's job to legislate from the bench. And of course, is it a correct decision? Not only that,
00:03:34.740
but is it a correct decision to reinterpret what the 1964 civil rights law said about sex? Is it okay to
00:03:43.860
redefine sex to mean something else, to broaden it out with moral implications? So the reason why this
00:03:50.920
is contentious and why this is difficult for many Christians who believe that the Bible is the word of
00:03:57.000
God, that God created the heavens and the earth, therefore he is the authority over all of it, therefore he says
00:04:02.820
what is and what isn't. And he created the male and female, and he defines marriage in one way, which is
00:04:07.980
between one man and one woman. We believe that sexual orientation and so-called gender identity have
00:04:13.520
moral implications attached to it that biological sex in and of itself does not. And so it is not the
00:04:21.140
same for the Christian who has this kind of biblical worldview or anyone who has this kind of moral worldview
00:04:27.660
about gender and sexuality. It is not the same to view someone based on sex and or view them based
00:04:36.860
on sexual orientation or whatever gender they supposedly identify as. So there is a moral component
00:04:45.160
to the sexual orientation that is not there in regards to sex for people with the traditional
00:04:51.620
scientific perspective on this stuff. So that is the problem here. It is not whether or not the court
00:05:00.020
did not decide whether or not it is moral to discriminate. They decided something that Congress
00:05:07.460
was supposed to decide that was actually supposed to be legislated. It hasn't been able to be legislated
00:05:13.100
because it hasn't been the will of the majority of the people. It's very similar as the Obergefell
00:05:19.040
decision. So you can still believe that transgender people, that gay people should not be discriminated
00:05:25.440
against in the workplace and still disagree with the reasoning of this decision and the principle
00:05:32.820
behind the decision, which is that the court is able to legislate something that really should happen
00:05:38.720
in Congress and on the state level. So I just want to I want to make that clear because it is
00:05:45.400
obviously going to be it's very obvious already that this is a conversation that says, oh, you know,
00:05:52.940
I don't really agree with how the court came about this. And then the other side says that you're a
00:05:56.640
bigot, that you are denying the humanity of gay people and transgender people. And that is not the
00:06:02.860
case at all. It is about constitutionality. It's also about religious liberty. Are our religious people,
00:06:09.260
our religious employers, our religious organizations going to be able to live out their biblical worldview
00:06:16.800
in the workplace? Are they going to be able to say a man is a man, a woman is a woman, which is a
00:06:21.840
biological fact? Are they going to be able to say these biological facts? They're not just religious
00:06:27.380
statements. It's a biological fact. Are you going to be able to say that without being in violation
00:06:32.000
of federal civil rights law? That should have been a decision that is made in legislatures.
00:06:39.260
So that is the problem that is before us. And again, as with so many things, when it comes to
00:06:45.780
social issues, we have to be able to remove ourselves from the emotionalism and from the high
00:06:52.880
drama of these conversations and think logically, think constitutionally, of course, think morally and
00:06:59.660
realize this is not a conversation about whether it's right or wrong to discriminate. Again, you can
00:07:04.880
believe that and still disagree with the constitutionality of this decision. Another
00:07:09.060
reason why a lot of people are disappointed by this is because it was Justice Gorsuch, who
00:07:13.700
is a conservative justice. He is. I don't think it's a farce. He truly is a conservative justice,
00:07:18.620
obviously appointed by President Trump, who wrote the majority opinion. I encourage you to read his
00:07:23.160
opinion. I encourage you to read the dissent by Justice Alito. And I also encourage you to read
00:07:28.580
Kavanaugh's dissent as well. They lay out very good arguments that we'll actually discuss today
00:07:34.840
with Kerry Savarino for why this decision was made in an erroneous way. Kerry, thank you so much for
00:07:44.760
joining me. Great to be here. Thanks for having me. For everyone who does not know, can you tell them
00:07:49.900
who you are and what you do? Yes, I'm the president of the Judicial Crisis Network, and we are dedicated
00:07:56.100
to trying to help confirm judges who are going to be faithful to the constitution and to the rule of
00:08:01.900
law. Before that, I clerked for Justice Thomas in the Supreme Court. So I'm an avid follower of the
00:08:07.420
cases coming down from the Supreme Court and kind of helping explain them for people. And that is exactly
00:08:13.300
why you are here today. Can you give everyone just a brief summary of the case that was decided
00:08:19.200
by the court on Monday? Yeah, so there were a set of cases together. And the question they were asking
00:08:25.820
is whether the 1964 civil rights laws, which say you can't discriminate in employment based on a
00:08:31.620
series of things, you know, on the basis of sex and the basis of race and the basis of religion,
00:08:35.660
et cetera, whether that on the basis of sex then also means that it includes on the basis of sexual
00:08:42.900
orientation and on the basis of gender identity. And the challenge with this here is we have a lot of
00:08:48.700
federal laws and we have a lot of state laws that say specifically no discrimination on the basis
00:08:53.680
of sexual orientation or no discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The language in this
00:08:59.260
statute that was being interpreted doesn't say that. It simply says on the basis of sex. And so
00:09:05.160
what we saw coming out on Monday was a decision that then interpreted that concept of on the basis of sex
00:09:12.380
so broadly that it swept in basically anything that has to do with sex, which is how they got in
00:09:18.660
sexual orientation and in transgenderism into that previous law that for decades, none of the
00:09:26.500
politicians who passed it. And for decades later, everyone acknowledged this law doesn't cover this
00:09:32.140
territory. It's a concern because the revision of our laws is not for judges to do. That is for the
00:09:39.360
legislature. And this is why Congress has many times discussed and debated, should we add sexual
00:09:44.680
orientation to this law? Should we add gender identity? That is where that should be happening.
00:09:48.760
It shouldn't ever be happening with the unelected men and women on our courts making those important
00:09:53.800
decisions for us. And Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, which may be to some people out
00:10:00.560
there that might be a little bit surprising because he is he has talked about being a textualist.
00:10:06.040
Obviously, he was appointed by President Trump. But for you, what was this a surprise?
00:10:13.160
So on one sense, yes, it's surprising because I think this is his decision. While it was framed in
00:10:19.700
textualist terms, isn't a very good application of the philosophy of textualism. It is sort of a
00:10:25.160
surprise meaning textualism, which is not what Justice Scalia, his predecessor on the court,
00:10:29.900
embraced the idea that somehow a law suddenly means something different than everyone understood it to mean
00:10:35.280
when it was passed, because we have to interpret things. You know, the legislators can't predict what
00:10:40.320
people might read into their laws in the future. We only can deal with the words that they actually
00:10:44.600
meant at the time. At another level, though, it's not entirely surprising because some of his
00:10:49.340
questions during oral argument did seem to get hung up on this question of, well, if it's because of
00:10:54.360
something having to do with sex, the word sex is in there. Maybe that that stretch is broad enough to
00:11:00.020
cover this. So we saw some aspects of this of this logic coming out in his questions during oral
00:11:06.740
argument. Unfortunately, I don't think that at the end of the day is the right textualist analysis. And
00:11:12.840
Justice Kavanaugh in his dissent really kind of clarified, I think, with some good examples
00:11:18.040
for the American people, what the original meaning actually is supposed to be. So it's not just
00:11:23.580
you look up a dictionary definition of each word and then kind of cobble them back together,
00:11:27.980
like some, you know, online translation program. We know that those don't really work very well.
00:11:32.860
And the way people use language in real life is very different. So he talked about how statutes
00:11:38.600
are interpreted, for example, a statute covering fruits. Does it cover a tomato? Even though
00:11:43.360
botanically it's a fruit, most people don't consider tomatoes fruits. They think of them as vegetables.
00:11:48.400
And legally, actually, the same thing would apply. Because when people mean fruits, they mean a
00:11:53.240
different kind of thing. They don't mean the botanical definition that follows. He said, look at the term,
00:11:57.420
for example, a three pointer. Technically, a field goal in football gets three points. So maybe that's
00:12:02.580
the three pointer. But we know most people who are familiar with the English language and in the
00:12:07.080
sporting world understand a three pointer almost always is referring to a basketball shot from beyond
00:12:11.900
the three point circle on the court. So in in the usage of these terms, we have to understand them
00:12:18.280
as they were actually meant by people at the time. We don't get to kind of just pick apart
00:12:22.360
the language and then put it back together. So the logic that Gorsuch gave, and please correct me
00:12:28.720
if I'm wrong, but just to summarize, it was discriminating in the workplace on the basis of
00:12:35.320
sexual orientation or so-called gender identity necessarily means discriminating on discriminating
00:12:42.960
toward biological sex. Because, for example, you would not fire a woman for being married to a man.
00:12:50.100
But if you fire a man for being married to a man or a man wearing a dress that a woman would wear,
00:12:55.860
then that is, according to Gorsuch, sex discrimination. And so is that true? Is
00:13:05.020
That's the argument he's making. I think there's a couple of fallacies embedded in that. And
00:13:08.800
the real difference is there's a difference between discriminating because of sex, because you are male or
00:13:15.480
And we're very familiar with that concept. And it happens in both ways. The Supreme Court has said
00:13:19.380
it applies to men just like it applies to women. There's a difference between that and discrimination
00:13:24.700
on the basis of sexual orientation. It's a real thing. It happens, but it's not the same thing.
00:13:30.000
And this is why so many laws that outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
00:13:34.720
they have language to do that. We have a specific term. As Justice Kavanaugh also pointed out,
00:13:40.500
he said, look, the Seneca Falls, the movement for women's liberation was very different than the
00:13:45.020
Stonewall riots. I mean, they had they had they're different movements. There are a lot of people who
00:13:49.580
may belong to both, but it's a different principle at work here. We can't conflate the two. Logically,
00:13:55.700
it's just two different types of discrimination going on.
00:13:58.820
Right. Can you tell us what this will mean, for example, women's sports or public restrooms or
00:14:07.200
religious organizations or religious people that that that run a business? Because I'm I'm a
00:14:14.260
Christian. And so I know that there is obviously a difference between sex and sexual orientation for
00:14:19.660
people who, you know, believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. There is a morality that is
00:14:24.700
tied to sexual orientation that is not tied to sex. And so there presents a problem here. Can you
00:14:30.880
can you tell us what it means? I know I asked a ton of questions in that one question, but can you tell
00:14:36.040
us what this means in the way of religious liberty and in the way of just individual liberty, especially
00:14:40.340
for women and girls? Yeah. So Justice Alito and his dissent, there were two dissents here and his
00:14:46.040
really went through a great list of the areas the court said it wasn't dealing with today. And OK,
00:14:51.740
that wasn't the specific issue before, but the implications in all of these other area of law
00:14:56.420
from the sea change and understanding of what the word sex means are really widespread, as you kind
00:15:02.440
of alluded to. There's questions of religious freedom, which if this change were being done
00:15:07.120
in the legislative process, which is how our changes to laws are supposed to be done, you would see that
00:15:11.940
generally balanced out by, you know, an understanding of, OK, if you have a church, are they then required
00:15:16.920
to hire someone who who is living in a way that's at odds with the values they're teaching
00:15:21.840
or, say, a religious school? Same kind of principle that unfortunately wasn't done by the
00:15:27.580
court because that's they can't make those kind of legislative compromises. You have questions like
00:15:33.120
the question that arose in Hobby Lobby that are almost certainly going to come up. So, for example,
00:15:38.240
in Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Christian business owners not to have to
00:15:43.340
pay for health care that violated their conscience, including abortions, abortifacient
00:15:48.640
contraceptives. In this case, now, what happens? What could could Christian business owners be forced
00:15:54.480
to pay for sex change surgeries or cross sex hormones that they also find morally problematic,
00:16:00.740
but then be forced to fund for their employees? That's still an open question. Now, questions about
00:16:06.400
whether bathroom or locker room usage can be limited to members of a single biological sex. And there are
00:16:12.520
real concerns about safety issues, about women who have experienced sexual violence themselves and
00:16:19.060
then find themselves in a intimate environment like that with someone who is a biological male,
00:16:24.480
however he may identify, is still a very threatening experience for many women. The future of women's
00:16:30.200
sports is another serious question. If women's sports teams, not just as we've seen at the school
00:16:36.540
level, but now also professionally, because we're talking about employment law in this case,
00:16:40.520
are forced to hire men, biological men who identify as women, then competing on unequal footing with
00:16:50.120
biological women. Will we even be able to see women left in so-called women's sports? It has a really long,
00:16:59.600
broad implications. And I think the court will be experiencing a veritable tsunami of litigation now,
00:17:06.160
following this, because it leaves so many questions unanswered. It's kind of an illustration of
00:17:10.680
how this is clearly not what the law always meant, because if we're seeing this much uncertainty now
00:17:15.820
brought about by this change, it just illustrates, yes, this is a sea change in what the understanding
00:17:21.320
of this term that's been around since 1964 actually means. Justice Alito wrote the dissent,
00:17:28.520
and I think that you, or the, yes, he wrote the dissent, and I think that you already alluded to that.
00:17:33.560
Can you summarize his main objections to the majority opinion?
00:17:39.440
Well, I think he starts out putting it very well. He said there's only one word for what happened in
00:17:44.200
the majority opinion today, and that is legislation, that this is what the meaning of the word, again,
00:17:49.740
by every politician who passed it, by every court that interpreted it for the first many decades the
00:17:56.240
law was around is that because of sex means because you are male or because you are female,
00:18:02.060
not because of your sexual behavior, sexual orientation. As Justice Alito had asked during
00:18:07.260
oral arguments, too, he said, wait a minute, how can this be, you don't actually have to know even the
00:18:11.720
person's sex at all to make these determinations. What if they said simply, I'm happy hiring someone
00:18:17.840
who's heterosexual, I don't care if they're male or female, but I don't want to hire someone who is
00:18:22.000
homosexual in this position. You don't have to know if it's a man or a woman. You just simply have
00:18:25.740
to know whether they are living a homosexual lifestyle. And I think that is, so he pointed
00:18:32.180
out the distinction. He also went through all of the challenges that are going to follow from this law.
00:18:37.480
And he had a litany of dictionary definitions as well, saying, okay, look, this term has been
00:18:44.660
interpreted for decades. And here's every dictionary you could possibly find to show you that sex simply
00:18:52.300
did not ever mean sexual orientation. It does. It's not the same as sex as transgenderism. It has
00:18:58.520
a separate meaning and trying to blur those meanings does not do service to the actual words of the
00:19:03.660
statute or the English language. So I think one thing that people listening to this kind of need to
00:19:08.720
understand is that we're not necessarily, we're not talking about whether or not it's right to
00:19:13.340
discriminate. We're talking about whether or not it is the job of the court to essentially, like you
00:19:19.960
have said, legislate in this way, in the way that Congress hasn't been able to. And I think another
00:19:26.980
concern probably that people have when they're thinking through such a decision with such wide
00:19:33.640
implications is what it not only has to do with the First Amendment in regards to religious liberty,
00:19:39.400
but also the freedom of speech, someone, an employer in the workplace saying, you know, a man is a man,
00:19:46.340
a woman is a woman. Are they going to be in danger of being in violation of federal civil rights law?
00:19:53.480
So this is something that Justice Alito's dissent pointed out, the real tension with First Amendment
00:19:57.760
principles that's going on here, because you have jurisdictions like New York that are now hitting
00:20:02.680
people with very heavy fines if they use a pronoun that someone isn't the preferred pronoun that
00:20:09.580
someone had. You could easily imagine an employer similarly having an issue where his employee could
00:20:14.840
claim there was a hostile work environment, not just for pronoun uses, but even potentially just for
00:20:20.340
commentary that suggested he believed there is reality to biological sex. That's a real risk. And at the end
00:20:27.660
of the day, it's not, though, about the decisions on how do we run our civil rights law. That's
00:20:34.740
something that needs to be debated in the political spheres. That's something that Congress needs to weigh
00:20:39.680
in on. And they have been debating. And there are actually laws that they've been discussing right now
00:20:45.020
at passage. It's really a question of who decides. Is it our elected representatives that decide? That's
00:20:50.920
how the Constitution set up our system. So we have to elect our legislators. Or is it unelected judges
00:20:56.980
who serve for life terms, who have no accountability directly to the people, who are making these
00:21:02.920
decisions on what should be some of the most hotly debated policy issues? They're not an issue that is
00:21:10.700
a legal question for a judge to decide. Do you have any advice or encouragement for what people who are
00:21:18.120
worried about this and the implications of this should do? Obviously, voting is not enough because people
00:21:25.400
voted for President Trump and we got Gorsuch, who has made some good decisions, but this one obviously
00:21:30.100
is disappointing. And the judges are not elected officials, like you said. So what can people do
00:21:39.260
to make any kind of change or to voice their opinion or dissent and things like this?
00:21:46.000
Well, I think being willing to talk about concern about these decisions, it's very difficult in a world
00:21:50.580
where I've just seen the hit I've gotten on Twitter in the last 24 hours. People who are having a hard
00:21:57.960
time understanding that there's a logical distinction between having a constitutional concern about a
00:22:04.420
legal decision and hating people and being a bigot. We can't sink to just reflexively demonizing anyone
00:22:13.160
who we have a disagreement about, even if it's a serious one. We have to be able to debate these
00:22:16.760
questions. But I do think that making sure we are heard at the polls is still the most important
00:22:21.940
thing we can do. Look, the distinction between Justice Gorsuch and the kind of judge that, say,
00:22:27.640
Joe Biden would nominate, this kind of person that Hillary Clinton would have put on the court is still
00:22:32.100
incredibly dramatic. Justice Gorsuch agrees with Justice Thomas on the court more than any other
00:22:38.080
sitting justice. That is something that is a wide gulf between him and the kind of person that,
00:22:44.560
you know, Joe Biden would would probably put someone on the court who is to the left of Justice
00:22:48.300
Ginsburg. So while all of these men and women are fallible, I don't think this is something that was
00:22:53.220
a, you know, a calculated move on his part to to try to do, you know, come up with a wrong decision.
00:22:59.100
He simply has, I think, a mistaken approach to textualism. In that case, there are decisions
00:23:03.640
of Justice Scalia's that I disagree with, that he came to conclusions, even even one of the foundational
00:23:08.920
religious freedom decisions that I think most people on the right would say now he got wrong.
00:23:13.680
That's simply a function of the fact that we have fallen men and women in these positions.
00:23:17.300
You can't expect everyone to get every decision right. What we need to have, though, are judges
00:23:21.480
who do take the text seriously. I think Gorsuch does. I think he confused it in this case. But
00:23:26.540
I fully expect that going forward, we're going to see him continue in a textualist and originalist
00:23:33.080
path. And I have to say, the choice before us is really, do we want more justices like that?
00:23:39.340
And remember, Justice Kavanaugh, who also wasn't, he wrote a very strong dissent in this case.
00:23:45.260
Or do you want to see justices who aren't even going to have the pretense of trying to look at
00:23:51.380
the text of the law, who are happy to embrace the idea that they can add new value to not just
00:23:56.640
statutory language, but to the Constitution itself, that they can bring new things into that
00:24:01.060
that founding document that our country has? That is a wide gulf. And I think that's one
00:24:07.160
that we have to ensure that we still have judges who believe that the Constitution means what it
00:24:11.620
says and our laws mean what it says. Exactly. So voting still matters, especially in this
00:24:16.740
presidential election. Can you please tell everyone where they can find you and any other resources
00:24:22.820
that you would like for them to check out? Yeah, so I'm on Twitter at JCN Severino.
00:24:28.300
I have a website at judicialnetwork.com. That's where JCN, my organization, is located,
00:24:34.760
as well as on Twitter at Judicial Network. Awesome. Well, thank you so much, Carrie,
00:24:39.480
for joining me. Thanks. Have a great day. What I think is interesting about this, I just want to
00:24:45.100
add this commentary before we end the episode, is that the people who pay the price for this,
00:24:51.120
obviously Christians are going to pay the price for this. Are they able to exercise their religious
00:24:55.320
liberty in the public sphere? It seems like that's getting not only more and more dangerous and more
00:25:00.460
and more unpopular, but also more and more illegal. The left, because their ideologues,
00:25:06.280
are finding a way to subvert the Constitution to make sure that Christians aren't actually able to
00:25:11.740
live out and speak about their faith in any kind of substantial way. Now, I don't want you to be
00:25:16.760
worried about that. You should go listen to last Wednesday's episode, which was past the point of
00:25:20.980
no return, where I remind us that the church is refined by fire. It's not destroyed by it,
00:25:26.000
and that in most of the world and for most of history, Christians have not had freedom of speech.
00:25:31.160
They have not had freedom of religious expression. The American Spearment is a reprieve from the
00:25:37.460
tyranny that has tried to crush Christianity and the Christian church for so long, and we should be
00:25:42.620
grateful for that, and we should continue to fight for that. But we also cannot be surprised.
00:25:48.340
One, and we can also not be scared into paralysis about the laws and the decisions that are coming
00:25:56.080
down the pipeline that Christians are going to have to pay for. But not only that, but decisions
00:26:02.980
like this that say, basically, that you can identify as whatever gender that you want to,
00:26:08.520
and you have to be accepted into spaces that correspond with not your biological sex,
00:26:14.080
but the gender that you identify with. So no matter what that is on any day, you have to be
00:26:20.780
accepted into women's locker rooms. You have to be accepted into women's restrooms. You have to be
00:26:24.260
accepted onto women's soccer teams, lacrosse teams, and all of that stuff. The people who pay the price
00:26:29.560
for that are women. And, you know, the left talks a lot about misogyny and internalized misogyny
00:26:36.160
and deep-seated sexism and pervasive systemic sexism and all of this stuff. And, you know,
00:26:41.200
it's really easy to kind of brush that to the side and say, oh, you know, that's not true. Women
00:26:44.980
make the same as men do. Women have all the same rights that men do. But it's, I think it's actually
00:26:50.900
true. I think that there actually is deep-seated misogyny in a lot of people, but it's not coming
00:26:58.600
from the places that the left thinks it's coming from. It is coming from these movements that desire
00:27:04.220
to completely eliminate and experience the existence of women. It desires to eliminate
00:27:13.820
any real meaning of what it means to be a woman and to have women's only spaces. I don't know if
00:27:19.700
you guys saw that J.K. Rowling, she is obviously a leftist. She hates Donald Trump, but she has been
00:27:25.040
labeled a turf for a trans-exclusionary radical feminist like Meghan Murphy. If you've heard of
00:27:30.920
Meghan Murphy, she's a very interesting person to follow. She got kicked off Twitter for basically
00:27:36.500
saying a man is a man and a woman is a woman. She is a feminist. She is on the left side of the aisle,
00:27:41.640
but she believes in the existence of biological sex and the importance of recognizing biological sex
00:27:49.260
and biological women being different than men. Well, J.K. Rowling came out and said the same thing,
00:27:55.140
and she just got blasted. She got death threats. People tried to dox her. These transgender
00:28:00.900
activists tried to come after her, of course, burning her books and all of the crazy stuff
00:28:05.780
that fascists always do, by the way, just for stating that, hey, a woman is a woman,
00:28:12.120
and women have different experiences than men, and they have different experiences than people
00:28:17.480
who identify as transgender women. You just do. If you have not read the book Love Thy Body
00:28:23.480
by Nancy Piercy, and if you're a part of the Women's Book Club, and if you're not part of the Women's
00:28:27.520
Book Club, you should. You should join on Facebook, but if you're a part of it, we are going to read it
00:28:31.700
at some point. But her argument is basically that the Christian worldview values the sanctity of the
00:28:38.260
physical body of biology much more than the secular worldview does. The secular worldview says biology
00:28:45.100
doesn't really mean anything. It's subject to what our inner soul really wants or really says.
00:28:52.020
It's subject to what we feel. The Christian worldview says, no, the body biology means something. It means
00:29:00.720
something, and it is good, and it has a purpose. It's not just a biological reality, but it has
00:29:07.620
social implications. It has moral implications attached to it, and we actually think people
00:29:13.200
are born in bodies that are good, that are purposeful, that are intentional, that are beautiful,
00:29:21.220
that are fearfully and wonderfully made, and that there is a specific purpose and intention that
00:29:27.740
God has for physical bodies. Whereas the left believes that biology is really arbitrary based
00:29:34.620
on social whims and based on personal whims, and we are seeing that they are trying to push that gender
00:29:42.740
subjectivism on everyone else, and women are going to pay for it. Because you can try all day to say that
00:29:50.520
sex is arbitrary, that it's not real. There's no such thing as biological sex that woman doesn't mean
00:29:55.600
anything. Woman just means whatever you want it to mean. But truth is a beach ball. Biological truth
00:30:01.760
especially, it is a beach ball. You can try to push it under the water as much as you want to. You can get
00:30:07.120
the entire beach to get on this beach ball and push it under the water, and you'll be able to for a
00:30:13.460
little bit. But either the beach ball is just going to pop, or it's going to keep on coming back up.
00:30:18.520
That is what happens when you try to suppress the truth. And in that time, when you are pushing the
00:30:24.420
beach ball under, people will suffer. People are going to suffer. People always suffer when you try
00:30:31.460
to go against or enact policies that go against human nature. Nothing that you ever do, no study that you
00:30:38.680
ever publish, will ever be able to discount the basic biological reality of male versus female.
00:30:46.640
You're just not going to be able to get rid of that. You can see from the womb that males and females
00:30:52.920
are different. They are different down to their DNA. If you've ever been around children, male and
00:30:57.540
female children raised in the exact same way, with the exact same toys, the exact same clothes, with the
00:31:02.860
exact same colors around them, talk to the exact same way, act differently. They are different. I am
00:31:08.780
around babies, boy babies and girl babies, and they are different already at only a few months old.
00:31:16.240
You are never going to be able to deny that or change that with any kind of social policy.
00:31:21.800
And when you do, people will suffer. And because women are physically weaker than men, that's another
00:31:26.940
difference that apparently the leftist doesn't want to accept. We will be the victims of the eraser
00:31:33.500
of women or the attempt to erase women and allowing men, biological men, into protected spaces for
00:31:41.520
women. Women are going to be the victims of that. So these people who say that they care about women's
00:31:47.920
rights and want to protect women, and all they mean by that, by the way, is allowing women to kill
00:31:54.600
their children. Like that's their idea of empowerment. Their idea of feminism, which is so empowering and
00:32:01.040
apparently equalizing, is allowing women to kill their children and allowing men into women's locker
00:32:07.600
rooms. Super empowering. I can't imagine why feminism, today's feminism, isn't more successful
00:32:14.820
and effective, why it's not attracting more people. Anyway, those are the thoughts that I have for today.