Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 264 ｜ The Supreme Court's LGBTQ Ruling： Redefining Sex ｜ Guest： Carrie Severino

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 0.88

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 0.73

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 0.64

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. 1.00

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

00:13:02.600 that the argument that he was trying to give?

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

00:13:14.600 female. Right. 1.00

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 0.78

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 0.92

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, 1.00

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 1.00

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 0.94

00:18:25.740 to know whether they are living a homosexual lifestyle. And I think that is, so he pointed 1.00

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? 1.00

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 0.93

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 1.00

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 1.00

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 0.99

00:25:37.460 tyranny that has tried to crush Christianity and the Christian church for so long, and we should be 1.00

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 1.00

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 1.00

00:26:24.260 accepted onto women's soccer teams, lacrosse teams, and all of that stuff. The people who pay the price 0.51

00:26:29.560 for that are women. And, you know, the left talks a lot about misogyny and internalized misogyny 0.63

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 0.55

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 1.00

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 1.00

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, 0.98

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 0.80

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 1.00

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 1.00

00:29:55.600 anything. Woman just means whatever you want it to mean. But truth is a beach ball. Biological truth 1.00

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 0.93

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 0.93

00:31:02.860 exact same colors around them, talk to the exact same way, act differently. They are different. I am 0.51

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 1.00

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 0.99

00:31:47.920 rights and want to protect women, and all they mean by that, by the way, is allowing women to kill 1.00

00:31:54.600 their children. Like that's their idea of empowerment. Their idea of feminism, which is so empowering and 0.99

00:32:01.040 apparently equalizing, is allowing women to kill their children and allowing men into women's locker 1.00

00:32:07.600 rooms. Super empowering. I can't imagine why feminism, today's feminism, isn't more successful 1.00

00:32:14.820 and effective, why it's not attracting more people. Anyway, those are the thoughts that I have for today.

00:32:19.720 We will be back here on Friday.

00:32:31.040 Bye.

00:32:36.800 Bye.

00:32:37.100 Bye.

00:32:37.620 Bye.

00:32:37.720 Bye.

00:32:38.120 Bye.

00:32:38.140 Bye.

00:32:38.220 Bye.

00:32:38.720 Bye.

00:32:39.100 Bye.

00:32:40.100 Bye.

00:32:41.060 Bye.

00:32:41.260 Bye.

00:32:43.100 Bye.

00:32:43.360 Bye.

00:32:43.500 Bye.

00:32:44.340 Bye.

00:32:47.040 Bye.

00:32:47.300 Bye.

00:32:48.260 Bye.

00:32:49.400 Bye.

00:32:50.320 Bye.

00:32:52.200 Bye.

00:32:52.560 Bye.

00:32:52.620 Bye.

00:32:53.000 Bye.

00:32:53.180 Bye.

00:32:53.560 Bye.

00:32:55.620 Bye.

00:32:56.220 ection?

00:32:57.200 Bye.

00:32:57.700 Bye.

00:32:58.080 Bye.

00:32:58.600 Bye.

00:32:58.820 Bye.

00:32:59.440 Bye.

00:32:59.980 Bye.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - June 17, 2020

Ep 264 ｜ The Supreme Court's LGBTQ Ruling： Redefining Sex ｜ Guest： Carrie Severino

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript