Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 819 ｜ Jen Hatmaker Commemorates Her Divorce from Evangelicalism

00:00:00.000 Jen Hatmaker commemorates Pride Month on Instagram by remembering the interview in

00:00:06.800 which she announced that she is LGBTQ affirming. I will explain why what she says is not only

00:00:14.880 obviously unbiblical, but also unkind and unloving. Also, a journalist from the Rolling

00:00:21.500 Stone reached out to me, calling me quote unquote transphobic. I'm apparently being included in some

00:00:27.620 article that she's writing, but I have a response to her accusation as well as an interesting analysis

00:00:37.160 of her previous reporting, which I find extremely dark and disturbing. Also, we'll get into that

00:00:44.540 Wall Street Journal report about Instagram connecting a vast community of pedophiles

00:00:52.740 through its algorithms. It's very troubling, but I do have some advice and some encouragement for you

00:00:57.440 parents. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Go to GoodRanchers.com.

00:01:01.580 Use code Allie at checkout. GoodRanchers.com. Code Allie.

00:01:15.580 Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Thursday. Hope everyone's having a wonderful week so far.

00:01:21.840 All right, before we get into all the madness today, I did just want to give a shout out to some new

00:01:26.280 merch that I have, but this is special merch. This is special merch. This is only available

00:01:31.180 to those of you who will be at Young Women's Leadership Summit this weekend. This is a Turning

00:01:37.360 Point USA event for women. And yes, you can be considered a young woman, really no matter what

00:01:44.720 your age is. So bring your mom, bring your sister, bring your daughter. There's going to be a wide variety

00:01:49.940 of speakers and we are all going to be there to educate and edify you women. This is really my

00:01:56.480 favorite speaking event of the year. The energy is high. It's just so much fun. This theme is like a

00:02:02.260 1970s theme this year because a lot happened in the so-called women's movement in the 1970s

00:02:10.680 that really kind of led to some of the problems that we see today. And so we're going to be talking

00:02:16.120 a lot. There will be plenty of speakers talking about different things, but we'll be talking about

00:02:20.060 what real womanhood should look like. I can't give you a sneak peek on my speech yet because

00:02:26.420 I have not finished it, but I did just want to say that I've got this awesome merch that will be

00:02:31.500 available there. So if you will be at YWLS this weekend, you can get a shirt that I'm wearing and

00:02:38.880 guess what it says? It's so cute. On the front, it says, do the next right thing and we'll put it up so

00:02:43.780 you can see it on YouTube. On the front, it says, do the next right thing. And then on the back,

00:02:48.300 it has what we always say, do the next right thing with excellence, with excellence and for

00:02:55.440 the glory of God, in faith with excellence and for the glory of God. And you can see it's like in the

00:02:59.900 shape of a cross, super cute. I think very unique. And so we have it in this purple color that I'm

00:03:04.980 wearing right now. We also have it in like the neon yellow that you see right there on YouTube with the

00:03:10.020 purple writing. And then we've got the same thing on the back that we have on this one.

00:03:14.960 So that'll be available. I'm wearing an extra large right now. I will say, I mean, I'm pregnant.

00:03:21.600 I do typically like my shirts to be roomier. And I think that this is too large. This is too large.

00:03:29.500 So if you're like me and you like a bigger shirt, I would actually still probably go for a medium large,

00:03:34.800 just depending on who you are and what you're looking for. The extra large, even while pregnant

00:03:40.300 is just a little, it's too long. It's too long. I will say that. So these, I would say kind of run

00:03:45.060 big compared to say like your average comfort colors or something like that, but very soft,

00:03:50.920 lightweight, especially for summer, super cute. And then we also have these shirts,

00:03:55.740 raise a respectful ruckus. So this is kind of going with the YWLS 1970s theme. So on the front,

00:04:03.120 you've got those retro letters. This is pink. The lettering is brown, raise a respectful ruckus.

00:04:08.160 And then on the back, you've got the mouth with raise a respectful ruckus. So we have that in pink.

00:04:12.720 And then we also have it in blue. I love this color blue, super cute. And then on the back,

00:04:19.300 you've got the same little design there. So if you are at Young Women's Leadership Summit

00:04:24.020 this weekend, I will be there. Would love to say hi. Hopefully we can get a picture. If you bring

00:04:29.880 your book, I can sign your book as well. And then we've got, I think some other merch maybe that we

00:04:35.300 are selling at the Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey table that will be up at Young Women's

00:04:41.860 Leadership Summit. So I just wanted to say that. And just to say that I'm excited for this weekend.

00:04:46.760 I'm excited to see all of you that will be there. Okay. Let's talk about something that I'm not so

00:04:53.860 excited about. I'm indifferent toward it. I'm not mad about it or sad about it, but I'm also

00:05:00.860 not happy about it. And I think most people, when they receive an email from the Rolling Stone,

00:05:08.400 they would be like, oh my gosh, I'm about to have another hit piece or I'm about to have a hit piece

00:05:13.060 written about me or I don't like this negative coverage. But at this point, when entities like

00:05:18.580 media matters have already lied about you and you already know how like the mainstream media feels

00:05:24.620 about people like you, not that I'm being like written up about all the time, but I already know

00:05:29.320 what they think about my views. I already know what they think about people like me, people who are

00:05:33.840 pro-life, people who are anti-gender ideology, especially people who are for traditional biblical

00:05:39.100 marriage. I already know that they think that I am the worst kind of person that has ever existed.

00:05:43.500 So when I got an email from the Rolling Stone saying that we are including you in an article

00:05:48.320 about so-called transphobia, I wasn't surprised. I wasn't anxious. I wasn't sad about it. I was like,

00:05:54.480 yeah, this is just kind of par for the course when you talk about the things that we talk about that

00:06:00.800 conservatives tend to talk about, especially conservative Christians. So I received this

00:06:05.080 email a couple of days ago from someone named EJ Dixon. Now, I think it's EJ. It's interesting how

00:06:11.620 this person spells it. It's not capital E, capital J. It's capital E, lowercase j. So I don't know if it's

00:06:18.320 EJ, edge, EJ. We're going to go with EJ. So she says, Dear Ms. Stucky, my name is EJ Dixon.

00:06:26.660 And we also have a screenshot of the email, so you know that this is real. And I'm a senior writer

00:06:32.400 for Rolling Stone. We are reaching out because my colleague and I are working on a piece about right-wing

00:06:36.640 influencers pivoting, pivoting to posting transphobic content in the past year or so. And we are citing you

00:06:43.180 as an example. As we have noticed, you have increasingly been posting about LGBTQ people

00:06:48.480 and your account has grown quite a bit. Would you like to provide comment as to why you have become

00:06:53.420 interested in this issue and why you started increasingly posting about this topic? Please

00:06:58.160 let us know by tomorrow, EOD, if you would like to add anything to our piece. Thank you. Now, I think

00:07:06.220 that this was Tuesday. And so what I actually appreciate, I will say this, EJ, what I actually

00:07:12.580 appreciate is that I did have a window of time to comment. A lot of times when you get these emails

00:07:18.540 from journalists, the last time I got just like a barrage of emails from these left-wing outlets was

00:07:23.720 2018 when I did that satirical video about with AOC where I did like a fake video with her or a fake

00:07:31.760 interview with her, which was really fun and like very easy to do. And I really didn't think anything

00:07:37.400 of it. It was just fun. And then I got all these emails the next day from the Atlantic and the

00:07:42.280 Washington Post. How do you feel about intentionally deceiving people and trying to make Alexandria Ocasio

00:07:50.260 Cortez look stupid? Look, I didn't try. I didn't try. It was just fun and funny. And the fact that you

00:07:58.760 guys took it so seriously actually makes it much funnier. So sometimes they say they'll send you

00:08:05.160 an email like that. That's obviously leading. Their angle is completely naked. They are obvious

00:08:11.560 about the narrative that they're trying to push and they'll say, tell me in the next hour. And then

00:08:15.500 they'll post the article and then maybe they'll go back and they'll like give your clarifying comment

00:08:20.920 later. But they don't give you any time. So at least I do appreciate the Rolling Stone gave me

00:08:26.960 some time to respond and that EJ gave me the courtesy of some kind of window. I don't know

00:08:32.940 when this piece is going to be published. Maybe by the time this episode comes out today,

00:08:36.420 it will have been published. And I really thought, honestly, honestly, I went back and forth about how

00:08:43.480 I should respond to this. I talked to some people at Blaze TV. I asked Seth Dillon. He was just on the

00:08:50.280 cover of the Rolling Stone. And I was like, how would you respond to this? And I talked to my husband

00:08:54.700 about it. And I saw that Matt Walsh got a similar email and he kind of, you know, just trolled them

00:09:02.220 and was like, I'll answer your email when you tell me what a woman is, which is a great response.

00:09:07.020 I really considered like my husband and I thought about this and I really considered writing a sincere

00:09:13.780 response to her to really explain why I talk about the things that I do and also to correct the record

00:09:21.540 about what she is trying to accuse me of. Because what she's obviously trying to accuse me of,

00:09:27.600 the obvious angle of her article is transphobia is a right-wing grift that pays. That's what it's

00:09:33.800 going to be. It's going to be while people like Matt Walsh and some other influencers have gained a lot

00:09:39.300 of prominence and traction from jumping on this transgender bandwagon. And so other influencers,

00:09:46.020 influencers with a smaller audience than Matt Walsh, like Allie Stuckey, have also jumped on this

00:09:51.400 bandwagon in order to increase her audience and to gain opportunities. And she once spoke for the hate

00:09:57.040 group Moms for Liberty. And the only reason she got that is because so she's getting paid because

00:10:03.740 she's talking about all these trans. That's going to be the thing, which, of course, that is absolutely

00:10:08.740 untrue. It's absolutely untrue that this is some sort of bandwagon that people are jumping on because

00:10:16.620 they've realized that it's going to gain them prominence or make them money. In fact, there

00:10:20.900 have been people who have been talking about this for a very, very long time who have not gained

00:10:26.900 prominence, who are not lining their pockets, who have not gained opportunities, but actually lost

00:10:31.520 opportunities. Remember Megan Murphy? I've had her on the podcast. She's a Canadian feminist who was

00:10:37.100 talking about this before a lot of people were. And she, quote unquote, misgendered someone on

00:10:42.920 Twitter. She got kicked off Twitter for several years. I think that was 2017 or 2018. She only

00:10:48.500 recently got reinstated on Twitter by Elon Musk. So she lost her platform. Therefore, she lost a lot

00:10:54.180 of opportunities because she spoke out about this. So if anything, this is something that a lot of people

00:10:59.880 don't want to talk about because they know it's going to put their job at risk. But they're going to try

00:11:04.940 to say, well, people in right wing media, though, it grows, it grows their platform. So I decided to

00:11:11.800 respond half sincerely and then half. I don't even know if I should say snarkily because I'm actually

00:11:17.280 very sincere about my response and like what I said to her. But I decided to make it public rather than

00:11:22.380 emailing her because I knew if I sent an email, then it was going to be decontextualized. It was going

00:11:29.180 to be nitpicked and she was going to put a quote in the article and no one was going to have any

00:11:34.940 ability to verify whether what I said was actually in context or actually accurate. So I decided to

00:11:41.100 respond publicly on Twitter. All right. So I talked about this a little yesterday with

00:11:59.160 Oren McIntyre. But here was my response on Twitter. So I went a little trolly and then also sincere for

00:12:07.240 the people who actually want to read the or know sincerely what my response would be. So I said, and

00:12:14.120 we'll get more into we'll get more into this accusation that I make in just a second. I said, hey, EJ

00:12:20.560 Dixon, thanks for email. Happy to be included in your Rolling Stones piece. Quick question. Do you still

00:12:25.580 believe pedophilia is a sexual orientation that can be satisfied by child sex dolls? Please let me

00:12:30.740 know by EOD tomorrow. And so that was EOD tomorrow was yesterday. She didn't let me know. So

00:12:35.780 unfortunately, I have to talk about it today without actually getting acquiring any comment

00:12:40.820 from her or else I would I would include it. But she didn't unfortunately respond to me. And this was

00:12:47.120 in reference to an article that she wrote for the Daily Dot in 2014, where she suggests that we

00:12:52.600 should offer sex robots that look like prepubescent children to pedophiles in order to satisfy their

00:13:01.560 sexual desires. And she also says in this article, she says, quote, I've become convinced that we need

00:13:09.200 to stop getting caught up in our she says knee jerk reactions to adults having sex with children on

00:13:15.260 quote, that's EJ Dixon, the journalist, senior writer for the Rolling Stones that reached out to me. So

00:13:20.920 she doesn't call it what it actually is, which is always rape. It's impossible for an adult to have

00:13:25.580 sex with a child. Having sex requires consent. Sex without consent is rape. Children cannot consent.

00:13:33.960 So any kind of adult sexual interaction with a child is rape or sexual assault or molestation. But she

00:13:41.400 says sex with children. She also calls pedophilia a sexual orientation. So I just wanted her comment on

00:13:47.540 that. Has she evolved on the issue? Has she changed? I just thought it was a little odd that she would

00:13:53.120 try to paint me as some kind of grifting extremist for simply thinking or knowing that men cannot become

00:13:58.540 a woman while she has been out here for the past few years pushing the kind of normalization of

00:14:04.400 pedophilia by using language like sex with children. And I have more on that because when I dug into her

00:14:11.460 history, I learned that this is kind of some this is kind of a pattern, this kind of strange rhetoric and

00:14:18.100 strange suggestions when it comes to the sexualization of children. But before I get into

00:14:23.220 her history of journalism, I just wanted to respond to the obvious implied accusation in her email. And so

00:14:33.500 I'll kind of read you and then kind of riff a little bit on what I said on on Twitter. So I have been

00:14:40.360 writing and talking about gender ideology at least since 2018, probably 2016 or 17. Now, mind you,

00:14:48.500 I started speaking in 2015. In 2016, I was still just like a Facebook blogger. And mostly it was

00:14:58.020 talking about the election. 2017 is when I started working at what was then called the blaze. And I'm

00:15:05.600 sure, actually, I probably did make videos about gender and this gender madness then, although it

00:15:10.580 wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is today. Like, I mean, if Hillary Clinton had had her preferred

00:15:16.700 pronouns and her Twitter profile, then we would have been talking about it. But it was mostly about the

00:15:21.980 election. And also, mind you, like I graduated from college in 2014. So like all of this is happening

00:15:28.820 very quickly. And then in 2018, that's when I started Relatable. And 2018 is the first episode

00:15:36.000 that I could find where I talk about gender ideology specifically. And so I have been talking

00:15:42.280 about it for at least the past five years. This is not some recent discovery that I've had. I don't

00:15:49.780 even really know many conservative commentators who have not been talking about it for the past several

00:15:55.280 years. So I certainly was not the first person to talk about gender ideology and the danger of

00:16:00.400 this idea of transgenderism. But I definitely wasn't the last. Like, I definitely haven't just hopped on

00:16:07.700 this recently. But here's why I have probably started talking about it more than I used to. Why

00:16:15.160 everyone left, right and center has started talking about it more than we used to. Because things have

00:16:22.080 changed. Because the right is reacting to the left's insanity on gender, not the other way around.

00:16:28.840 And I know that EJ, Edge, Ege, whatever her name is, I know she knows that. I know she understands

00:16:35.260 that conservative commentators are reacting to the left's push of gender ideology and not the other

00:16:43.080 way around. So as I said on Twitter five years ago, we didn't hear about kids attending drag shows.

00:16:48.780 We didn't hear about that. This is honestly something that we started seeing regularly about

00:16:54.160 a year ago. And I would say that's thanks to mostly libs of TikTok. There are other journalists,

00:16:58.840 other whistleblowers who have shown this. They've shown video of these kids being brought to the

00:17:04.600 pride parades, brought to the drag shows. I don't even like to show that because I don't like to show

00:17:09.780 images of minors faces, even if their parents are willing to exploit them. Like, I don't want to

00:17:15.320 further that exploitation on this show. But we are talking about drag shows where you've got men

00:17:20.200 in bare prosthetic breasts shimmying and twerking for money. We're talking about pride shows or pride

00:17:27.080 parades, as we talked about yesterday, where men are acting as basically slaves for another man who is

00:17:37.260 whipping them in their leather chaps. You remember it was either last year or the year before in the

00:17:43.900 Washington Post, where a mom wrote an op-ed saying that she actually wanted her child to see kink.

00:17:52.600 She actually wanted her child to see kink at these pride parades. Five years ago, I don't remember that

00:17:59.280 being a mainstream idea. I'm not sure that five years ago, the Washington Post would have been

00:18:07.380 running op-eds about purposely showing kids kink at pride parades. I don't think that we were talking

00:18:14.020 about child drag shows and children attending drag shows five years ago. But now we are, thanks to

00:18:21.620 progressives. We didn't know five years ago, most of us didn't. I'm sure there were people that did and

00:18:28.340 were trying to blow the whistle. Most of us did not know that there were minors receiving puberty

00:18:34.540 blockers. We didn't know that that was happening. We didn't know that young children were getting

00:18:42.520 placed on things like Lupron, placed on these medications. For boys, it's very often the same

00:18:50.240 medication that is given to serial pedophiles to chemically castrate them. We didn't know that.

00:18:56.360 The Wall Street Journal just published an article actually yesterday saying this,

00:19:01.340 the FDA has approved synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones to treat

00:19:05.180 certain conditions like prostate cancer or endometriosis, but it has not approved these

00:19:09.420 drugs as puberty blockers to treat so-called gender dysphoria. To circumvent the FDA's authority

00:19:14.180 to examine safety and efficacy, the drugs are prescribed as off-label for these kids who don't

00:19:20.100 want to go through male or female puberty, who think that they are confused about their gender.

00:19:24.020 The FDA has issued warnings on Lupron, the hormone-blocking drug, advising it might cause

00:19:28.300 psychiatric problems in children, risks of brain swelling and vision loss. These can also cause

00:19:34.480 permanent infertility and sterilization of kids. You understand that our bodies and minds actually

00:19:40.780 need the natural puberty process in order to function, in order to develop in a healthy way.

00:19:49.560 We didn't know that that was happening. Most of us weren't aware that that was happening five years ago.

00:19:53.700 Now we realize that that's happening on a regular basis where these confused, distressed, often

00:19:59.660 depressed little kids are put on these harmful, dangerous medications in order to stop the natural

00:20:07.200 puberty process. So we've discovered that over the past five years. We didn't realize that minor

00:20:14.220 young women, girls, are getting double mastectomies in the name of gender affirmation.

00:20:20.720 According to a national review article from last year, a study published in JAMA Pediatrics shows the

00:20:26.800 number of quote-unquote gender-affirming mastectomies increased five times from 2016 to 2019,

00:20:33.180 about 100 in 2016, about 489, almost 500 minors, young women, had their healthy breasts chopped off

00:20:42.120 in 2019. Maybe that's why I started talking about it more. And then we've also heard many stories of

00:20:49.700 deconstructionists. We've had them on our show. You probably know the story of Chloe Cole. She had

00:20:54.600 a double mastectomy when she was 15, 15 years old. A doctor for money cut her healthy breasts off.

00:21:04.000 I didn't know that was happening five years ago. Most of us didn't. Researchers from UC San Francisco,

00:21:10.780 according to the Daily Mail, studied mastectomies performed, mastectomies performed on girls ages 12 to

00:21:16.360 17 at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Health System between January 2013 and July 2020.

00:21:22.520 This covers 56 regions. The number of gender reassignment surgeries has risen 13-fold in the last decade,

00:21:28.960 with some children as young as 12 opting for irreversible operations. We actually played a clip

00:21:33.900 from someone from Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, saying that he recommended a 12-year-old

00:21:41.720 patient, this is a psychologist, a 12-year-old patient for a double mastectomy when she was only,

00:21:48.220 when she was a preteen. That's 12 years old because she was apparently confused about her gender. We have

00:21:55.520 him admitting that on tape. So this has become mainstream. This has increased. We're seeing the

00:22:05.020 prevalence of so-called trans kids. I mean, I Am Jazz is a whole TLC show. It's a children's book that

00:22:11.480 is now being glorified, now being hoisted up by brands like Pottery Barn Kids. This wasn't happening

00:22:20.100 five years ago. You want to know why we're talking about it? Because you perverts are pushing it.

00:22:25.080 Okay? Maybe stop putting kids on puberty blockers. Maybe stop cutting off the healthy

00:22:33.220 breasts of children. Maybe then we'll stop talking about it. I don't know. Maybe that's an idea.

00:22:41.060 Also, five years ago, we didn't hear about men who identify as female raping women in prison.

00:22:49.200 But now we do. According to the New York Post, there's a male rapist who transitioned before

00:22:56.400 trial, then sent to an all-female prison as a quote-unquote transgender woman. This person who

00:23:04.640 goes by the name of Isla, I think that's maybe how you pronounce it, Bryson. He's in Scotland.

00:23:10.440 He was convicted of raping two women when he was a man, is being sent to a female prison to await

00:23:16.260 sentencing. He was found guilty of committing the rapes when he was previously named Adam Graham,

00:23:20.980 a very muscular, testosterone-filled manly man. And then he was allowed to go to the Scottish

00:23:27.940 prison. Many such cases. It's not just in Scotland. It's not just in the UK. It happens

00:23:33.620 here in the United States. It happens in Washington. It happens in California. It happens

00:23:37.760 in New Jersey. It happens in all of these blue states. Read Redux. Go to Redux's website. They're

00:23:43.720 reporting on this on a daily basis. According to the National Prison Rape Elimination Act

00:23:48.760 Resource Center, there is a lawsuit ongoing by a female prisoner who says that she was raped by a

00:23:55.420 transgender inmate. In a federal lawsuit filed last week, this is in 2020, a Jane Doe inmate at the

00:24:02.300 Logan Correctional Center in central Illinois said that after being sexually assaulted by a trans fellow

00:24:08.900 inmate in June 2019, she was coerced by a supervisory officer into denying the attack

00:24:14.500 took place and then punished for filing a false complaint under the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

00:24:21.900 Again, this is happening across the country. If women aren't actually being raped and at times

00:24:28.060 impregnated by these men who identify as women in the female prisons, they're at least being

00:24:34.720 intimidated. We are talking about some of the most vile, violent rapists, even child rapists,

00:24:40.900 murderers, men who identify as women being transferred to these female facilities in places

00:24:48.640 like New York and Illinois and New Jersey and Washington and California. Again, go to Redux's

00:24:54.020 website. Look it up for yourself. It's all cited. I didn't know this was happening five years ago,

00:24:59.880 EJ. Did you? So maybe that's why I'm talking about it. Maybe you should care about it,

00:25:04.440 too. Five years ago, we didn't really hear about men dominating in female sports. Really,

00:25:11.500 the most we knew. And you know what? I probably did talk about this at the time, actually,

00:25:16.180 looking back on it. The most we knew was the Caitlyn Jenner, Bruce Jenner thing. And honestly,

00:25:20.520 most of us left, right in the center thought, whew, that's kind of sad. Someone who is clearly

00:25:27.100 has something wrong with them, is tortured internally in some way, now thinks that he's a woman. That's

00:25:33.020 really sad. That's the most that most people had thought about this. We didn't know that this was

00:25:37.340 preying upon young people. Five years ago, we didn't know about CeCe Telfer, the track guy who

00:25:45.100 identified as a woman who started dominating young women in sports. We didn't know about Leah Will

00:25:51.840 Thomas. That wasn't happening then, as far as most of us knew. We didn't know about Laurel Hubbard.

00:25:59.080 According to Outsports, there have been at least 23 so-called trans women who have won national or

00:26:04.940 international competitions or championships. Of course, they have. Of course, they have. Because

00:26:10.880 if you go through male puberty, you have irreversible advantages over women. You've got a larger heart that

00:26:17.080 cannot be changed by estrogen. You've got more muscle mass. You've got greater bone density. You've got

00:26:23.600 longer bones. None of these are changed by some kind of synthetic hormone regimen. I wasn't hearing

00:26:30.620 about these sororities who are forced to accept men into their sorority houses, who are getting turned

00:26:36.700 on by being at the sleepovers there, changing in front of these young women. I didn't hear about the

00:26:44.520 stories happening in sororities like the University of Wyoming right now, who are trying to simply

00:26:51.440 protect their sorority as a female exclusive space. These things weren't happening five years ago.

00:26:58.520 Five years ago, we didn't have to worry about sending our kid off to school and then being

00:27:03.640 questioned over and over again about whether or not they're really a boy or a girl.

00:27:08.320 Megyn Kelly talks about this, that at their very elite school in New York that her kids used to go to,

00:27:14.820 that her boys were being asked over and over again, are you really a boy? Are you sure you're a boy

00:27:20.420 today? We didn't have those kinds of children's books five years ago. And yet now we do.

00:27:28.960 We didn't hear about policies like those that are being pushed by the Biden administration that will

00:27:35.480 make it impossible for schools to allow there to be sex-exclusive sports teams. A reformulation of

00:27:46.100 Title IX, how the Biden administration actually wants to reformulate it, would force schools to

00:27:52.540 then allow boys, young men who want to compete against girls, who want to be able to push girls

00:27:59.840 down, to run faster than girls, who want to bully girls and share girls' bathrooms and share girls'

00:28:07.140 locker rooms to allow them to do so, would force schools to do that. That's what the Biden

00:28:11.620 administration wants to do. That was not being discussed five years ago. Five years ago, no one

00:28:18.500 was suggesting that the government should bar schools that don't let boys into girls' bathrooms

00:28:24.940 from receiving meals for poor students. That is actually happening. The Biden administration ties

00:28:31.600 funds for school lunches to compliance with transgender mandates. This was from June 2022 from

00:28:36.980 the blaze. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it will interpret federal anti-discrimination

00:28:42.120 law to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. What this means

00:28:46.920 is that any recipients of the USDA's Food and Nutrition Services child nutrition programs,

00:28:52.300 including the National School Lunch Program, could lose federal funding if they do not comply

00:28:57.240 with Biden's new interpretation of Title IX. So literally taking food out of the mouths of poor

00:29:05.220 students because a school will not allow a boy into a girl's bathroom. Well, we've already seen,

00:29:11.000 for example, in Virginia, where boys are assaulting girls because they identify as non-binary. They

00:29:17.420 identify as girls. They go into the girl's restroom. They sexually assault these girls. This is happening.

00:29:22.580 It wasn't happening as far as I know five years ago. Did EJ even know a single soul with their

00:29:30.260 preferred pronouns in their Twitter profile before 2019? That wasn't even an option on Instagram until

00:29:36.180 very recently. Had any of us really heard the term birthing person or person with a uterus?

00:29:43.160 I don't remember that five years ago. And now we see that regularly. We see that from Congresswomen

00:29:48.900 like Cori Bush. We have the Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Jackson, saying that she doesn't even know

00:29:56.120 what a woman is because she's not a biologist. There was a guest on Dr. Phil recently who said,

00:30:03.000 I'm a birthing person, not a woman or a mother. Now, what's interesting is that EJ, she wrote this

00:30:09.980 article, very, very profound article in 2016, where she talks about maternity clothes being so ugly.

00:30:19.140 It's titled Dear Maternity Clothes, Please Stop Being So Ugly.

00:30:22.000 And she talks specifically about women and mothers not being able to find the right clothing.

00:30:30.660 She doesn't say birthing people. She doesn't say people with a uterus. She doesn't say a caregiver.

00:30:35.700 She talks about women specifically. She talks about mothers specifically. Now, would she still use

00:30:42.980 that same exclusive language as she were writing this kind of ridiculous article today?

00:30:48.540 By 2023 standards, her 2016 article isn't nearly inclusive enough, but she's changed.

00:30:56.400 She's gotten more insane, right? Like she's started saying things that no one said five years ago.

00:31:02.560 And what she is now trying to argue is that none of us were supposed to notice.

00:31:06.880 None of us were supposed to notice that the left has gotten more insane about gender.

00:31:10.540 None of us were supposed to notice that they are pushing this so hard.

00:31:13.600 None of us were supposed to notice how this is affecting children.

00:31:16.120 And now that we are, we're being called grifters for it.

00:31:19.860 That's what they do. This is what the left always does.

00:31:23.280 Conservatives pounce. Christians pounce. Right-wing extremists pounce.

00:31:28.960 But again, this is not surprising coming from someone like EJ,

00:31:32.140 because she has this very strange history of journalism, which I personally find very disturbing.

00:31:41.040 So one thing, one last thing that I'll say about, about that, about my response to her

00:31:59.320 is that I actually, and I don't know if she can say this about herself. I actually believe the things

00:32:07.060 that I do. I'm actually sincere in my passion about this subject.

00:32:14.920 And this is not like, this is not a new revelation for me. I have always been a Christian

00:32:20.880 for as, as long as I can remember, have believed, at least in Genesis 1.1, that God created the heavens

00:32:29.060 and the earth, have believed in Genesis 1.27, that God created the male and female.

00:32:32.780 So I've always believed that. It was the revelation over the past few years that there is such a violent

00:32:41.060 assault on that reality that has inspired me and many other people to talk about it as we've seen

00:32:47.280 the destruction that it brings to communities, to families, to peoples, to bodies.

00:32:53.360 That's why we're talking about it, because we care about it, because it's dangerous, because it is destructive,

00:33:00.740 because it will lead to eventual societal collapse if we're not already on an inevitable collision course already,

00:33:10.200 because it ruins kids' lives, because it's not true. It's not true. It's a lie.

00:33:15.620 That's why we're talking about it. And I sincerely believe that.

00:33:20.440 I guarantee you, if I had never, ever talked about this, I don't think that that would affect

00:33:24.860 my audience size at all, but it would have actually been extremely inauthentic and insincere

00:33:30.240 for me not to touch this subject. It would have been completely unnatural based on the belief system

00:33:36.260 and the worldview that I've always had about reality, about theology, about morality. And so it wouldn't

00:33:41.980 have made any sense for me not to talk about it. It wouldn't have made any sense for me not to talk

00:33:46.920 about it more than I used to based on the craziness that is being pushed on us so prevalently on a

00:33:51.920 daily basis. I'm not sure that EJ could say the same thing about her own integrity and sincerity.

00:33:56.920 I'm just not sure. But I want to dig into her history because I didn't know who she was when she

00:34:03.260 first emailed me. And actually, I had talked about one of her previous articles on the show last week,

00:34:13.380 I think. And I just didn't realize it was by her. But once I started piecing it all together,

00:34:19.020 it made more sense. So like I said at the beginning, she has an article from 2014 in the Daily Dot. It was

00:34:25.680 updated apparently in 2021. And this was kind of what led me down the path of, oh, why does she

00:34:32.600 talk about this? Has she talked about this more? Where she argues basically that pedophilia is a

00:34:39.180 sexual orientation. So it's an attraction that people feel. It's not a paraphilia. It's certainly

00:34:44.720 not a, she would say, not a perversion. It's just how some people are oriented. And instead of having an

00:34:52.760 emotional reaction to it, instead of being horrified by it, she argues in this article,

00:34:58.280 we should think about how to address it. And she suggests that creating these child sex robots would

00:35:04.400 maybe be a good way to satisfy the desires of these people who lust after children, these

00:35:12.920 pedophiles. And there's no evidence for this whatsoever. Really, any kind of form of common

00:35:20.000 sense that we have, especially with what we know about the objectification that comes with

00:35:23.820 pornography, we know that it would probably just spur more violent crime against children because

00:35:29.780 it's a kind of perverted addiction. Just like people who are addicted to pornography have, they

00:35:35.520 need something that is more intense, more extreme, gives them more dopamine that is more exciting,

00:35:41.680 that is more violent. And so it just gets worse and worse and darker and darker. There's no way that

00:35:47.120 they would be satisfied from this kind of perverted act and not go on to find a real life flesh and

00:35:54.080 blood victim. Why should we satisfy this kind of absolute depravity rather than do everything that

00:36:02.020 we can to just protect children from it? She says, again, EJ Dixon says that she has become convinced

00:36:11.180 that we need to stop getting caught up in our knee-jerk reactions to adults having sex with

00:36:16.380 children. However despicable we might find it, as if our horror, as if our disgust is something that

00:36:25.420 is just subjective. And again, the language that she uses there is very normalizing language. Rather

00:36:32.420 than rape, rather than molesting, rather than assault, she says has sex with children as if it is

00:36:38.040 something that two people can be doing consensually when you're talking about an adult and a child.

00:36:42.860 So this was all the way back in 2014 that she wrote for The Daily Dot. And then I fast-forwarded a

00:36:52.080 little bit to the things that she has written about over the years. You'll remember Netflix's Cuties.

00:36:59.200 It was the movie that was advertised by Netflix in which the advertisement had young girls, 11 years

00:37:09.660 old, very scantily clad in very compromising and sexual positions and poses. And right away,

00:37:17.020 people just had a visceral reaction to this. It really shouldn't have been political at all,

00:37:20.580 but it probably was mostly conservatives being like, ah, that's not okay. Why is Netflix playing

00:37:25.760 this? This is very strange. And Dixon, of course, wrote an article about this in The Rolling Stone.

00:37:33.780 She says that conservatives basically pounced on this and made too big of a deal that the movie was

00:37:42.080 actually charged with lewdness, but she believes that the indictment to be totally meaningless and

00:37:46.880 those criticizing it should be overreacting. So Dixon argues that really this is the result. People

00:37:53.480 caring about Cuties is the result of the QAnon conspiracy theory. She says,

00:37:59.240 for months, far-right extremists such as believers in the QAnon conspiracy theory have been propagating

00:38:03.760 the idea that large Hollywood companies were promoting pedophilia and sex trafficking and child

00:38:07.940 trafficking, a claim that has increasingly gone mainstream. Immediately following the release of

00:38:13.740 Cuties, right-wing Texas politicians have been aggressively lobbying Attorney General William Barr

00:38:17.940 to investigate Cuties. So basically, her argument is that this is all part of some grand conspiracy

00:38:24.700 theory by the right, that there is nothing to see here, that there should be no concerns whatsoever,

00:38:30.300 that this is just a piece of art that people can appreciate, and that anyone who is sounding the

00:38:37.720 alarms about this is just playing a part in this fake, superficial, grifting culture war. That's basically

00:38:45.680 the argument that she makes about every concern that people center-right have, that it's all a big

00:38:51.620 grift, that it's all part of a conspiracy theory, that it's not a reaction to anything real. Their

00:38:56.580 reaction is just ginned up outrage in order to make money, in order to gain attention, that there's

00:39:02.700 no substantiation to our accusations whatsoever. And it tells you what she actually thinks about child

00:39:08.020 safety, right? Like, it tells you what she thinks about a movie like Cuties, that it's apparently

00:39:14.800 okay to put 11-year-old girls in a film like this, where they're obviously being provocative, they're

00:39:21.800 obviously being sexual, they're being exploited by the adults in their life, even if the greater

00:39:27.340 point of the film is to highlight the dangers and the terrible nature of child exploitation and these

00:39:34.900 kinds of competitions, like dance competitions that these girls are apparently in in the film,

00:39:39.400 even if that's the point, you can probably do that without also sexually exploiting the young

00:39:45.580 actresses in the film, right? Like, that could have been a better take for EJ to write about in the

00:39:51.920 Rolling Stone, and yet she doesn't go there. She says it's all part of a conspiracy theory.

00:39:57.600 And then I also noticed that she was the one that wrote the article that we talked about last week,

00:40:03.540 that furries have now have serious beef with Ron DeSantis. So now she is very upset that children

00:40:09.500 will not be allowed at FurryCon or this furry conference. Now, if you know anything about furries,

00:40:16.180 it is strangely a part of like LGBTQ, apparently, as she notes here, like 80% of people who are furries,

00:40:24.180 who are people who dress up as animals, by the way. It's weird. People, they dress up as animals.

00:40:29.140 Like 80% of them identify as LGBTQ. By the way, there's also like a very strange infantilizing

00:40:36.900 aspect of furries because they're very often like they're depicted as or dress up as like kids kind

00:40:45.300 of stuffed animals. Like remember the whole Balenciaga thing where there were teddy bears that

00:40:49.940 were being sold in kink gear and children were being used in like the advertisements? Like this is a

00:40:57.040 whole thing using depictions of like kids toys or kids stuffed animals as kink. Don't let anyone tell

00:41:06.180 you that this whole furrydom thing has no sexual nature to it. That is a very large part of it.

00:41:13.920 And she even admits here that a segment of furrydom might have to do with kink and sexuality,

00:41:20.800 but certainly not all of it. And so she is decrying the passage of SB 1438 or the Protection of Children

00:41:28.600 Act that would apparently bar children from attending furry con. Now, if furries have nothing

00:41:36.200 to do with sexuality and kink, as she argues here, why would this law have any effect on whether or not

00:41:43.580 children can go? Why would it have any impact? But apparently it does, because apparently there's

00:41:50.940 going to be sexuality on display. And apparently E.J. Dixon thinks that it's great for kids to be

00:41:55.680 exposed to that. She also wrote Rolling Stone 2022 pole dancers are the latest target of far

00:42:03.000 right grooming panic. She says this year at the Charlotte Pride Festival, Whitney Ann was more

00:42:08.060 excited than ever to attend her pole dancing. Her pole dancing studio, Pole Body and Arts, was one of the

00:42:13.180 first sponsors of the event and had a booth there. It was one of her first ever pride after coming out

00:42:18.460 as queer. When a little boy came by her booth to try out the pole, believing it was a firefighter pole,

00:42:23.600 Whitney says it was hot and he kept slipping off. OK, so temperature. It was hot and he kept slipping

00:42:30.160 off. So she did a pole sit to try to hold him up. We were out there having a good time and it became

00:42:36.260 an enormous issue. Yeah, that's freaking weird. It's freaking weird for a little boy to try to ride on your

00:42:43.120 pole for pole dancing and for you to try to assist him physically in some way. That was the video that was

00:42:50.680 going around. It was going viral. People were saying this is what's happening at Pride. And of course, she

00:42:56.140 is defending it. So this is kind of just her shtick. This is kind of just what she does. She talks about the

00:43:07.500 fear of grooming and the fear of pedophilia, the fear of child predation as just kind of a right-wing

00:43:15.860 grift. She has many other articles saying that the panic about child sex trafficking or the panic

00:43:21.720 about pedophilia, accusations of pedophilia, that the whole Save Our Children campaign, that it all has

00:43:27.280 to do with this grand QAnon conspiracy theory. And so that's the person that reached out to me

00:43:36.340 that apparently thinks that I am the extremist, that I am the grifter for saying that men cannot

00:43:43.100 become women and actually caring about the protection of children's bodies and children's

00:43:47.620 minds. OK, it's just so interesting, as we talked about yesterday, how the left rewards the fringes

00:43:55.540 of their movement while the right punishes theirs. I mean, she said the most vile, bleak, disgusting

00:44:01.740 stuff. And she has just been able to climb up and up at the Rolling Stone. So we'll see what the

00:44:08.540 article actually says. But I just wanted to point out that interesting history of our friend E.J.

00:44:15.740 Dixon, just a very strange fixation on, I don't know, on children and making sure that no one actually

00:44:24.780 protects children for fear that they might be accused of being some right-wing QAnon

00:44:30.820 conspiracy theorist. That's a strategy. That's a strategy.

00:44:34.760 OK, according to investigations by The Wall Street Journal and researchers at Stanford

00:44:50.980 University and the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Instagram, the popular social media

00:44:56.040 site owned by Meta Platforms, helps connect and promote a vast network of accounts openly

00:45:00.960 devoted to the commission and purchase of underage sex content. Instagram goes beyond

00:45:05.600 the forums and the file transfer services previously used by pedophiles. Its algorithms

00:45:10.260 promote pedophilia, connecting and guiding pedophiles to content sellers via recommendation

00:45:14.780 systems that excel at linking those who share niche interests. And so it goes on to say basically

00:45:21.780 how this works, how Instagram actually encourages these, the technology at Instagram actually encourages

00:45:27.780 these pedophiles to go out and find more content. And basically how Meta, how Instagram, they do not

00:45:34.520 have the mechanisms or the systems in place to tackle this. They've done some work over the past couple of

00:45:40.560 years, but it's simply not a high priority. That's what they found. And they were really disturbed.

00:45:45.120 These researchers found that they were able to access a lot more dangerous information about these pedophiles and how they work

00:45:57.260 than Meta says that they even knew, which should not be the case. Obviously, that should be an extremely high

00:46:03.360 priority. And Meta is actually one of, if not the number one place, one of the top places, whether you're talking about

00:46:10.340 Facebook or Instagram for child sex trafficking. So this should be priority number one by this company.

00:46:16.980 We know that Elon Musk apparently has really prioritized that at Twitter. Twitter is a far less popular venue for this

00:46:25.720 connection of pedophiles and child sex abuse material. Meta is much more popular for that. And they simply are not

00:46:34.060 doing the work necessary in order to take it down. And when I posted about this on Instagram, a lot of you

00:46:39.400 messaged me and said, yeah, I have tried to report images and it's really difficult to ever get a

00:46:45.640 response back. If you do get a response back, it's typically just that, oh, they can't do anything

00:46:51.460 about this. It's really, really sick. It's sick that these people exist. It's sick that they can use

00:46:57.740 Instagram. It's sick that Instagram's algorithms actually feed this. Can they not put a mechanism in

00:47:03.380 place that says, you know what? Okay. Like the explore page, it is typically, not always, it's

00:47:10.420 typically based on your own behavior. But sometimes they show me things that I'm like, that is totally

00:47:17.180 irrelevant to me. I don't think that's funny. I don't think that's cool. I would never click on that.

00:47:21.240 So I think sometimes they show you things that they just want to show you, but they also show you a lot

00:47:26.120 of accounts based on the accounts that you follow, based on the posts that you like, based on the things

00:47:30.680 that you click on, the posts that you save. And so can they not put a mechanism in place that says,

00:47:36.880 okay, we are not going to do that for inappropriate content. We're not going to do that for porn.

00:47:41.680 We're certainly not going to do that for child sex abuse material. You're saying that they have so

00:47:46.260 much sophisticated technology that they can basically read your mind to feed you advertisements

00:47:51.300 that they know that you will click on based on what you need in your life, but they can't prevent

00:47:56.240 people from seeing and sharing and selling child sex abuse. I just don't buy it. So like,

00:48:02.840 what's the reason here? Why isn't it a high priority? We should be asking ourselves that

00:48:07.380 question. Thank you to Wall Street Journal. Thank you to Wall Street Journal for writing about this.

00:48:13.920 Thank you for the researchers that did the research. We should be putting, I don't even know how,

00:48:18.660 but legislators should be putting a lot of pressure on Meta to figure this out. Priority number one

00:48:26.500 should be eliminating the circulation of child sex abuse material and child sex trafficking on these

00:48:34.940 platforms. Now, here's just what I want to say. We could talk a lot more about that. I encourage you

00:48:39.300 to read the article. It is behind a paywall. I am a subscriber. And so it's unfortunate that you have

00:48:45.260 to pay for it to read it, but it just is what it is. Here's my message to parents.

00:48:51.560 Don't, this is my, this is my opinion. And I know, I know, I know people get mad about this.

00:48:57.640 You can get mad. Don't post pictures of your kids online. Don't post them. It's not worth it. It's not

00:49:04.440 worth it. Because I don't even want to get into, like, I've talked to a lot of you about this. I follow

00:49:09.760 some experts on, on this about child safety online, that it really doesn't matter what kind of picture

00:49:15.680 that you post of your child. But unfortunately, with artificial intelligence and all of the

00:49:20.240 different technology that exists out there, there is a way to sexualize and change Photoshop the

00:49:27.680 pictures of your children so that they can then be circulated for abuse. Even if you're just posting

00:49:33.800 their face, even if they're fully clothed, it's a really unfortunate and tragic reality. And you can

00:49:40.180 push back on me and say, well, I shouldn't have to accommodate these freaks and these pedophiles and

00:49:44.520 these predators. They shouldn't, you know, steal my joy. I want to share a picture of my kid. They

00:49:49.280 shouldn't have to, you know, they shouldn't stop me from doing that. I agree with you. You shouldn't

00:49:53.180 have to. But that is the world that we live in. Now, if you can't abide by that, if you're like,

00:49:59.760 I'm still going to post pictures of my children online, which by the way, I think to me, it extends

00:50:04.640 past child safety. It also is about, it's about consent. It's about just privacy. It's about kids

00:50:12.180 being able to choose one day when they grow up, what they want to share online. And especially for

00:50:18.860 those who like commodify their children's experiences or commercialize their children's

00:50:24.620 upbringing. Like, I think there's a lot of ethical and moral issues that come with that. I'm sorry,

00:50:29.120 but I do. But also just when it comes to child safety, like if you're like, I'm still going to

00:50:34.420 post pictures of my kids online, but I'll make sure that, you know, they're fully appropriate,

00:50:39.620 things like that. Okay. Just please do not post pictures of your kids in their bathing suits

00:50:46.420 ever. Do not post pictures of your kids on the toilet ever. That's weird. I'm sorry. I think it's

00:50:52.880 weird when people do that period. Do not post bath pictures of your kids. Do not post pictures of

00:50:58.380 your kids getting into or just getting out of the pool. Do not post a picture of your kid in her

00:51:06.460 leotard doing gymnastics, doing cheerleading. Do not post any kind of picture of your child that is

00:51:17.260 not fully clothed. That is not totally appropriate. Like literally I follow this one account. I think

00:51:23.420 it's called mom uncharted where she talks about this and the terrible things that like go viral

00:51:28.540 that probably were innocent and innocuous, like kids eating certain kinds of foods that end up

00:51:33.760 being circulated on pedophile networks. There was this, one of you reached out to me and said,

00:51:37.880 a friend had the FBI show up at her house because she had shared this picture. I think it was probably

00:51:43.760 like a naked or a diaper picture of her child 17 years ago. Um, and apparently that picture had been

00:51:51.540 taken and then circulated hundreds of times in pedophile networks and they determined that she

00:51:56.220 had shared it first. And so they had to come and talk to her. So even those pictures that the vast

00:52:00.620 majority of us just see as cute, just see as innocent, see as no big deal. Unfortunately, they can be used

00:52:06.880 for abuse and exploitation. That doesn't necessarily mean that your child is going to be trafficked

00:52:12.020 or going to be found and kidnapped, but their image is being used for abuse. And a lot of you ask me,

00:52:18.720 well, what if I have my account private? Yes, that's a barrier. I would say that's a barrier

00:52:25.700 that's better than nothing, but it is not foolproof. We, we don't actually know how well

00:52:33.340 that is protecting your children because like, do you really know, know to their core, every single

00:52:40.360 person that follows you on your private account? Because remember like these pedophiles that we're

00:52:45.160 talking about, they're not like some, like they're not some class of people that all just like live

00:52:51.220 in their basement and you spot them and you're like, yeah, that's a creep. I mean, these are

00:52:55.200 unfortunately people at your workplace, people at your church. These are unfortunately people in the

00:53:00.500 networks that you know, these could be people in your family. Do you know, 100% that every single

00:53:05.600 person on your friend list on Instagram would not screenshot that picture, that cute picture of your,

00:53:12.180 you know, diapered or bathing suited baby and then share it? Like, do you know that for sure?

00:53:20.700 Do you know for sure you don't have any hashtags of your kids? Do you know for sure that there is

00:53:25.560 no way whatsoever for people to be able to see those pictures that you have posted online?

00:53:31.180 I don't think any of us can know that. So you might, you might not agree with me. You might say,

00:53:36.720 you know what, whatever. You're still going to share it. That is your prerogative. I still think that

00:53:41.700 you love your kids. I know that you want to protect your kids. It's a different choice you

00:53:45.820 might make, but that's my encouragement to you. I follow very, very few influencers. I follow

00:53:51.880 really just one, I don't know, a few, but really just like one influencer who I love because she

00:53:57.960 seems real. She seems fun. She seems like lighthearted and she's a fun follow, but I really

00:54:04.020 want to message her and I don't want to be a nag. I hate this, but I really want to message her and

00:54:08.740 say, stop posting so many pictures and videos of your kids, especially when it's like at the pool.

00:54:15.720 It's just, please stop. But I know that a lot of these influencers won't because it's their brand.

00:54:21.240 It's how they get sponsors. It's how they make money is like by posting pictures of their kids

00:54:26.900 online. And so I know that they won't, but I would encourage you. I reached out, I actually reached out

00:54:31.800 to an account yesterday. It's not an influencer account, but they had posted this picture of a newborn

00:54:35.440 baby. And I'm sure that like a, you know, a lot of people thought it was cute, but it was an

00:54:39.620 unclothed baby. And I just, I linked in the article and I was super kind about it. And I just said,

00:54:44.080 please consider just not posting pictures of babies that don't have clothes on. Unfortunately,

00:54:49.720 it's something that we have to think about. And thankfully they took it down. So I encourage you to

00:54:53.700 send this Wall Street Journal link to whoever it is that you follow, that you see posting,

00:55:01.020 you know, these kinds of pictures, even if they just have innocent, you know, motivations and just

00:55:06.260 say in a really kind way, like, I really love your content. Your family is so cute. I just wanted

00:55:10.420 to send you this and I hope that you would reconsider posting pictures of your kids online.

00:55:15.820 They might listen to you. You never know. I would encourage you to do that.

00:55:31.020 All right. So I've been wanting to respond to this for a long time because she posted it on May 27th

00:55:36.880 and I've been meaning to talk about it. And then, you know, things just happened and I wasn't able

00:55:40.580 to respond. She posted a pride post on May 23rd, a picture of herself performing a wedding for two

00:55:47.720 gay men. And then she shared a caption detailing how she ended her evangelical career when she affirmed

00:55:53.300 what is referred to as gay marriage in 2016. And she is not sad about it. So she says this on October

00:56:03.060 25th, 2016, I gave an interview that ended my career as I knew it. It went like this.

00:56:07.560 If an LGBT friend of yours got married, would you attend that wedding? I would attend that wedding,

00:56:12.040 she says, with gladness and I would drink champagne. I want the very best for my gay friends. I want love

00:56:15.900 and happiness and faithfulness and commitment and community. Yes, that's an easy answer. And how would you

00:56:20.080 respond if one of your children were gay? I think we would parent that child exactly the same with the

00:56:24.200 rest of them, which is to say we would always be on their side in their corner and for them and with

00:56:28.520 them. We want for all of our kids the same thing, faithful, committed marriage and a beautiful family

00:56:32.860 that is committed to God in the church. I would have the same standard across the board no matter

00:56:38.240 what. You mentioned faithfulness in God. You think an LGBTQ relationship can be holy? I do.

00:56:44.180 And she said the evangelical coffin was nailed shut. My books were pulled from shelves. My contracts

00:56:49.120 canceled, bestselling book out of print, and my calendar empty. Almost none of the famous ministry

00:56:55.280 friends would speak to me anymore. Thanks be to God. She said every loss was a hundredfold gain.

00:57:01.200 She said, do you know how many evangelicals and leaders feel misaligned between their head and

00:57:06.700 their heart here? Tons. They pull me aside when I travel. They say basically that they agree with me.

00:57:12.620 They know. My point, hearts are there. Minds are changing. And then she says she performed this

00:57:18.780 wedding. And she says, happy, almost pride. She posted another pride post on May 27, thinking

00:57:25.620 Rachel Held Evans, who died a few years ago for being the primary influence that led her to being

00:57:31.140 fully affirming of LGBTQ. And basically says, you know, the gospel is bigger. The Bible is bigger.

00:57:38.420 God is bigger than exclusion of LGBTQ people. And she says she affirms LGBTQ because they're human

00:57:45.660 beings and they're created in the image of God. So I think this all sounds extremely attractive and

00:57:52.540 appealing to a lot of people. Yes. And amen. A lot of people want to say, yes, you want to be seen as

00:57:57.500 loving. Yes. You want to be seen as affirming. You want to be seen as accepting. You want to be seen

00:58:01.980 as awesome, liked by the mainstream. And yes, God is bigger. The gospel is bigger. Of course,

00:58:07.100 it's fine. Love is love. All that's good. I know that that makes your heart feel good. That

00:58:11.700 maybe makes you warm inside. That maybe you can compromise on this issue and still be a disciple

00:58:16.480 of Christ. The reality is, is that you can't. You can't. Rosaria Butterfield responded to Jen

00:58:22.400 Hatmaker in 2016. And I've had her on my show. I've talked about her several times. Go listen to that

00:58:28.080 interview that I did with Rosaria Butterfield. She's amazing. And she wrote this. She said this,

00:58:34.380 if this were 1999, the year that I converted and walked away from the woman and lesbian community I

00:58:39.720 loved. Instead of 2016, Jen Hatmaker's words about the holiness of LGBT relationships would have

00:58:45.780 flooded into my world like a balm of Gilead. How amazing it would have been to have someone as

00:58:50.880 radiant, knowledgeable, humble, kind, and funny as Jen saying out loud what my heart was shouting. Yes,

00:58:56.220 I can have Jesus in my girlfriend. Yes, I can flourish both in my tenured academic discipline,

00:59:01.300 queer theory, and in my church. My emotional vertigo could find normal once again. But she says,

00:59:08.400 if I were still in the thick of the battle over the indwelling sin of lesbian desire,

00:59:14.500 Jen's words would have put a millstone around my neck. She says, calling God's sexual ethic hate

00:59:23.180 speech to Satan's bidding. This is Orwellian nonsense or worse. I only know who I really am

00:59:27.980 when the Bible becomes my lens for self-reflection and when the blood of Christ so powerfully pumps

00:59:33.040 my heart whole. That I can deny myself, take up the cross, and follow him. And she says that the LGBT

00:59:40.940 community is deceived by sin, deceived by a hateful world that applies the category mistake of sexual

00:59:47.320 orientation identity like a noose, and we all continue to fail miserably. She says, we have failed

00:59:55.280 to discern the true nature of the Christian doctrine of sin. For when we advocate for laws and policies that

01:00:00.680 bless the relationships that God calls sin, we are acting as though we think ourselves more merciful

01:00:07.160 than God is. So basically, she argues that Jen Hatmaker, that her response is actually hateful

01:00:14.900 because it's anti-God. It's actually causing people to sin. It's actually leading people to destruction

01:00:21.240 and burdening them with the millstone, burdening them with the heavy boulder that is disobedience

01:00:32.020 to God. Of course, that feels good. Of course, it feels good to do that because the world will accept

01:00:38.300 you and applaud you. But the fact of the matter is, it's not the way of the Lord. Like, what do we say

01:00:43.620 so often? What do we say so often? That the biblical definition of marriage is rooted in creation,

01:00:50.060 Genesis 1. It's reiterated throughout Scripture, honor your father and mother. It's repeated by

01:00:54.240 Jesus himself, Matthew 19, 4 through 5. It's representative of Christ and the church, which

01:00:59.080 we see in Ephesians 5. And therefore, it is reflective of the gospel. The Bible starts with

01:01:03.680 a marriage between Adam and Eve. It ends with a marriage between Christ and his bride, the church.

01:01:09.560 You can't get around it. If you try to redefine marriages between two men, two women, three men,

01:01:15.100 three women, whatever it is, anything outside of God's bounds and God's definitions, you are doing

01:01:23.060 away not just with one tiny verse in Leviticus or maybe one inconvenient or uncomfortable passage in

01:01:29.480 Romans 1, which would be wrong in itself. You are getting rid of God's greatest earthly depiction

01:01:34.140 of the gospel. You think that you know the gospel better than God does. No, the gospel is not bigger

01:01:42.120 than that because the gospel is represented through marriage between a man and a woman,

01:01:46.940 which represents Christ and the church. Ephesians 5 is abundantly clear on that.

01:01:51.300 This is why someone's entire theology falls apart when they start accepting that marriage is anything

01:01:56.700 other than between one man and one woman. That's why it never stops there. It always goes to

01:02:02.800 John 14, 6. You start denying Genesis 1, 27. You eventually deny John 14, 6, that Jesus is the

01:02:10.940 way, the truth, the life, that no one comes to the Father except through him. It always, always happens

01:02:16.420 that way. Because if you're going to question something that is that big, that obvious, that

01:02:21.520 consistent, that profound, that spiritual, that eternal, that gospel reflective in scripture, of course,

01:02:27.580 you're going to compromise on everything else. Something that is even affirmed by biology.

01:02:33.540 If you're going to deny that, such an obvious and observable truth, even to the non-Christian,

01:02:38.760 that the male-female relationship is unique and life-giving, of course, you are going to deny what

01:02:44.560 is far more controversial, that no one gets to the Father except through Christ, that you are a sinner

01:02:48.940 in need of a Savior. I'm not even sure that Jen Hatmaker would say that she believes that anymore.

01:02:55.100 Of course not. Because you've already compromised on the fundamentals. What's everything else?

01:03:01.960 And so that's why this is so central. That's why this is so important. And because I understand,

01:03:07.060 like Romans 1 and Romans 2 are right by each other. Romans 1, where we see the depravity of

01:03:12.380 homosexuality and the depravity of going outside of God's design. In the second chapter, we read

01:03:18.020 God's kindness leads people to repentance. Wow. So God is so kind that he designed family and

01:03:24.960 marriage to be this way. God is so kind that he gives us truth. God is so kind that he calls us

01:03:29.760 away from sin. God is so kind that he says our identity is not our sexual preferences or how we

01:03:34.460 feel or how we think we identify, but our identity can be in Christ and that all of us, whether your

01:03:39.480 temptation is homosexuality, whether it's gender confusion, whether it's alcoholism, whether it's

01:03:43.780 theft, whether it's lying, whether it's selfishness, whether it's some form of pride, which every

01:03:47.820 sin really is. We are all called to deny ourselves in our fleshly desires to take up our cross and

01:03:53.800 follow Christ no matter what. And if you deny that to someone, if you say, no, your identity really

01:04:00.800 is in how you feel sexually. Your identity really is in your so-called gender identity. Your identity,

01:04:07.080 your primary identity, your primary lens through which you should see yourself should be your own

01:04:11.440 feelings. You are burdening them with the dangerous and unmerciful and demonic God of

01:04:18.700 self, not the God of scripture. But if you love God and if you love other people, you want freedom

01:04:23.620 and goodness for them. You want them to be liberated of sin. You want them to find their identity in

01:04:30.560 Christ. So while Jen Hatmaker's words sound and seem really loving and good and pure, they're not.

01:04:37.140 Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So keep that in mind. Keep that in mind. And thank

01:04:43.840 you to Rosaria Butterfield for always speaking things so clearly. All right. That was a lot. There's

01:04:49.100 a lot in that episode. Okay. For those of you who will be at YWLS, I will see you there this weekend.

01:04:54.680 For the rest of you, I will see you back here on Monday.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - June 08, 2023

Ep 819 ｜ Jen Hatmaker Commemorates Her Divorce from Evangelicalism

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript