Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, Armstrong and Getty
Speaker 1: and he Armstrong and Getty. Man. What is better than
Speaker 1: coffee when you're needing it? Asipa coffee?
Speaker 2: Very few things that don't include friction of naked bodies.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's right up there. I don't get it.
Speaker 1: So you gotta see the visual for this. This is
Speaker 1: a This is a troll. He's a troll. He's trying
Speaker 1: to cause problems.
Speaker 2: And it's a guy addressed in a kind of cartoonish
Speaker 2: like Indian gear gear. He's got a headdress on, he's
Speaker 2: got some colored stripes on his cheeks, that sort of thing.
Speaker 2: And these they're in Minnesota fronting some of the people
Speaker 2: protesting ice.
Speaker 1: And this is what he says.
Speaker 3: I'm transcendigenous, are you? Are you cis American? I'm transcendigenous
Speaker 3: for ice?
Speaker 1: Ice. We love ice, we love ice. To poort them all.
Speaker 3: You're all trespassers on our land. Well, transcendigenous people are
Speaker 3: indigenous people, and you're all trespassers on our land. And
Speaker 3: we want Bobino to deport all of you guys, we
Speaker 3: love ice. Trans Natives love ice. We love you ice.
Speaker 3: We love ice. The TransNation. TransNation is just as valid
Speaker 3: as CIS nations. You're not transnative phobic, are you?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 3: I'm just checking. You're a SIS American, I'm transcendigenous. You
Speaker 3: really need to check your privilege because you're talking to
Speaker 3: a beautiful transcendigenous person of.
Speaker 1: Colorized I believe. I'm hoping to learn more.
Speaker 3: About your personal I'll educate you because your CIS pigment.
Speaker 1: So the best about that to me was that the
Speaker 1: guy that the troll was talking to didn't have, you know,
Speaker 1: the courage to like say I get out of here,
Speaker 1: you idiot or whatever. That he had to take. He
Speaker 1: had to take it seriously because he didn't, you know,
Speaker 1: he wasn't exactly sure what was going on here. But
Speaker 1: a lot of those terms he's very sensitive to. Are
Speaker 1: you working me around but you're using my terminologies? So
Speaker 1: I don't know what to do. Are you hostile to
Speaker 1: cist trans indigenous people? Well? No, but I just wonder
Speaker 1: what you believe because he's you know, he's got to
Speaker 1: be very careful. He knows these are hot, hot terms. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that guy was in New York. Wasn't he during some
Speaker 1: of the pro hamas uh protests. I love that bit.
Speaker 1: It's such a good bit. We're living in weird times.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you notice it.
Speaker 2: So this is an interesting one on uh uh connecting
Speaker 2: Iran in Greenland.
Speaker 1: So I don't know if you know who David from is.
Speaker 1: He was a speech writer I think for George W. Bush.
Speaker 1: But he's one of those people that have realized and
Speaker 1: he doesn't like Trump. That's fine, that's perfectly legit that
Speaker 1: he doesn't like Trump. And he's a Republican who wanted
Speaker 1: to go never Trump. But then he, like a lot
Speaker 1: of people, cross over into Wait a second, what happened
Speaker 1: to all of these issues that you cared about as
Speaker 1: a conservative? Now you go on MSNBC or whatever channel
Speaker 1: in bash.
Speaker 2: Everything conservatives do, and you're making lots of money, And
Speaker 2: he's one of those guys.
Speaker 1: Drives me nuts. Anyway, David fromm had tweeted out Trump
Speaker 1: lets Iranian freedom marchers die while preparing to kill Danish
Speaker 1: NATO comrades. Now that was attached to a tweet. I
Speaker 1: hadn't heard this, and I guess it's true. It's from
Speaker 1: open Source Open source I INT, which is intelligence, which
Speaker 1: is usually accurate. That said, Denmark is deploying an advanced
Speaker 1: command to Greenland, insisting of military material support and forward personnel,
Speaker 1: ahead of a large force from the army that is
Speaker 1: expected to arrive soon on the territory, in addition to
Speaker 1: aircraft from the Royal Danish Air Force? Is that true? Wow?
Speaker 1: Are the days suspect it is? You think the Danes
Speaker 1: are preparing for military action against the United States? That
Speaker 1: would be looney tunes. I don't know why they would
Speaker 1: tweak Trump that way unless it was a statement of
Speaker 1: what he's said his way over the line. It's improper.
Speaker 1: And you know, if you're going to come for us,
Speaker 1: come for us. We're not putting up with that sort
Speaker 1: of talk from an ally, which I don't blame them.
Speaker 1: Is you know I've been rather critical of Trump's rhetoric
Speaker 1: on Greenland.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think he should talk as if it's
Speaker 2: even on the table to possibly even take it militarily.
Speaker 2: But I'm surprised Denmark's were playing. But anyway, that's not
Speaker 2: really where I'm going here.
Speaker 1: So David from attaches his tweet to that Trump lets
Speaker 1: Iranian Freedom Fighter marchers die while preparing to kill da
Speaker 1: NATO comrades typical online sort of behavior. And Ian Bremer,
Speaker 1: who I don't agree with semi regularly on his politics,
Speaker 1: really is a force for calming things down online always,
Speaker 1: it seems to me. He and he responded to David
Speaker 1: From these are both very high profile people, Ian Bremer
Speaker 1: and David From. Ian Bremer responded with Trump not in
Speaker 1: fact preparing to kill Danish NATO comrades. This is a
Speaker 1: good thing to point out. Yeah, no kidding, Ah, don't
Speaker 1: in the facts get in the way of a good tweet.
Speaker 2: Lots of responses like it's incredibly naive and over the
Speaker 2: smug of you to at this point take the administration
Speaker 2: at their word blah blah blah blah, and Ian saying
Speaker 2: my view is, I think it's essential to be honest
Speaker 2: with people in Knight, not hyperbolic focus on serious threats,
Speaker 2: whether it's danger in his mind Ian's mind to the
Speaker 2: independence of the FAD or suspending defense intel support to
Speaker 2: Ukraine and pushing back on headlines where there isn't any
Speaker 2: serious threat, especially because the latter diminishes credibility of those
Speaker 2: offering criticism. Love that sort of talk for me and
Speaker 2: Bremmer trying to talk to people. Don't go around saying
Speaker 2: Trump's planing to kill Danes when he's not.
Speaker 1: That doesn't help anything.
Speaker 2: But the question is, and the question of our time
Speaker 2: really is who's gonna win the day? People like Ian
Speaker 2: and I think us who are trying to calm things
Speaker 2: down and sometimes say, look, I agree with this person,
Speaker 2: he's on my side, but that's not true what they
Speaker 2: just said. Are we gonna win the day or the
Speaker 2: David Frums or the bomb checkers or the exaggerate and
Speaker 2: you know, preach to the choir crowd and get them
Speaker 2: all routled up?
Speaker 1: Is that gonna win the day? And I actually don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think it's a coin flip. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I just I think both things will coexist and wash
Speaker 1: back and forth and fight for supremacy for the rest
Speaker 1: of our lives.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that's gonna be good enough. I
Speaker 2: think I think our side needs to clearly win the
Speaker 2: day or we're doomed.
Speaker 1: If it's a then we're doomed. I like to know
Speaker 1: what I'm doomed and renewed, because then you don't bother
Speaker 1: trying anymore.
Speaker 2: So your p doom is one hundred percent and very soon.
Speaker 2: That's an interesting question. It's one hundred percent, but maybe
Speaker 2: not soon.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah. I think the animal instincts of human beings
Speaker 1: are difficult to contain when they become a mob, and
Speaker 1: the Internet has allowed for the instantaneous forming of mobs. Well,
Speaker 1: here's here's something.
Speaker 2: Joe and I have talked about this a little on
Speaker 2: the air and a lot off the air, about whether
Speaker 2: or not we could be much much more wealthy if
Speaker 2: we would just play the game that you know, Megan
Speaker 2: Kelly seems to be playing, and lots of people are playing.
Speaker 1: I wish we could try it on just to so
Speaker 1: what it feels like.
Speaker 2: But you know, you lose all credibility and we'd lose
Speaker 2: lots of listeners and that sort of stuff. But I
Speaker 2: would like to try it on just to like tell
Speaker 2: a certain chunk of the crowding exactly what they want
Speaker 2: to hear our sides always right, the other side's always.
Speaker 1: Wrong, And just play that for a while and I'll
Speaker 1: bet it feels pretty good. You know, do more live
Speaker 1: appearances where you get in front of a crowd and
Speaker 1: you say exactly what they want and they're cheering. Oh yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: For the record, our discussions are mostly just a mental
Speaker 1: exercise because neither one of us has the inclination to
Speaker 1: do that. But my god, it's much easier, much easier.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, I gotta believe it is. Oh of
Speaker 1: course it is, sure, yeah, yeah, eliminating you know, ambivalence
Speaker 1: or there's some truth to that, but maybe it's gone
Speaker 1: too far blah blah blah, and just my side's always right,
Speaker 1: the other side's always wrong. So and so's a hero,
Speaker 1: so and so's a fiend. Never any nuance or gray area. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that'd be effortlessly well, not only would it be, just
Speaker 1: be easier rhetorically, and that's what I'm all about, ease.
Speaker 1: But go on, the people cheering you oh yeah, oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that have to be pretty fun. Yeah. I like to
Speaker 1: feel that we're cheered in our own way. But now
Speaker 1: you're right, disagree with anything you've said we did. I
Speaker 1: won't mention the name because she was really nice, but
Speaker 1: there was a bomb chucker fox presence that we did
Speaker 1: an event with one time, and she did that act
Speaker 1: and just watching the adoration of the crowd as she
Speaker 1: said the most like simplistic basic exactly what they want
Speaker 1: to hear sort of stuff. And it was some to watch.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, it was eh And it's tempting in
Speaker 1: a weird way. But again, anyway, I just wonder who's
Speaker 1: gonna win the day? Dan From, David From, a smart
Speaker 1: guy who's a speech writer for a president, going around
Speaker 1: to say and Trump's planning to kill Danish soldiers. Now
Speaker 1: he's not, you know, he's not, And what are you doing?
Speaker 1: David From is a DC climber, like all DC climbers. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's a bright guy, but he's a phony. Ah, speaking
Speaker 1: of phony and phony arguments. What our plan is? This?
Speaker 1: Gonna take a break, come back next segment. We're gonna
Speaker 1: play some of the key clips from the oral arguments
Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court yesterday about the gender benning madness
Speaker 1: in sport, specifically dudes who want to compete against girls
Speaker 1: because they say I'm a girl now, as ridiculous as
Speaker 1: that is. And then the next segment, we'll talk to
Speaker 1: Anastasia Boden, senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, about
Speaker 1: her take on the oral arguments and also a couple
Speaker 1: other big time cases that the Scotus has taken a
Speaker 1: look at, so all of that to come stay with us.
Speaker 4: It's only banning transgenate athletes from playing on the girls team, right,
Speaker 4: So it isn't a ban in totality on playing sports.
Speaker 4: It's a ban on playing sports on a team with
Speaker 4: people who don't have the same.
Speaker 1: Sex characteristics that you do. Yeah, he corrected himself to
Speaker 1: not get mixed up in the whole radical gender theory thing.
Speaker 1: It's a question of sex. Supreme Court hearing arguments yesterday
Speaker 1: about a pair of cases that had to do with
Speaker 1: boys who claimed to be girls playing in girls sports
Speaker 1: and the whole transgender thing. We're one of.
Speaker 2: The One of the boys who says they're now a
Speaker 2: woman is named Heacock's, which is absolutely amazing.
Speaker 1: Childish and irrelevant. That's true. It's true, that it is true.
Speaker 1: Yes on a Stasia Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation
Speaker 1: will be joining us next segment. But we wanted to
Speaker 1: play a handful of clips. Maybe you heard these early
Speaker 1: in the show, if you've been listening the whole time,
Speaker 1: If you have, God bless you, thank you for listening.
Speaker 1: But these are so interesting. Number one, we'll start with
Speaker 1: fifty five. This is Kaitanji Brown Jackson. She utters certain
Speaker 1: words that have not been heard in the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: before and I hope never will be again.
Speaker 5: You have the overarching classification, you know, everybody has to
Speaker 5: be play on the team that is the same as
Speaker 5: their sex at birth. But then you have a gender
Speaker 5: identity definition that is operating within that meaning a distinction,
Speaker 5: meaning that for cis ginger girls they can play with
Speaker 5: their gender identity, for transgender girls they can't.
Speaker 1: So I think that okay.
Speaker 6: As to the part about your ability to pass over
Speaker 6: from boy to girl, yes you can go from one way,
Speaker 6: but not the other.
Speaker 1: I want to be clear that PPJ is okay challenging
Speaker 1: that we don't need to hear that because it gets
Speaker 1: in illegal age. But you could tell she said cisgender
Speaker 1: girls don't get to play in the sport of their choice,
Speaker 1: and that would be guys like the guys like, oh
Speaker 1: my god, that's not even a thing. We're talking about sex.
Speaker 1: He won't even and he shouldn't concede the use of
Speaker 1: the term cis gender and transgender because they're part of
Speaker 1: radical gender theory and they have nothing to do with
Speaker 1: the question of boys playing in girls' sports. It's all
Speaker 1: about sex period. Don't get confused tech by their terminology.
Speaker 1: That's why they use all that complex terminology is to
Speaker 1: confuse people. Don't get caught up in it. Samuel Alito,
Speaker 1: who I hope lives for a very long time, got
Speaker 1: into it with the pro boys playing girls sports side
Speaker 1: and it went like this. It's im will to pick.
Speaker 7: Up on the issue of discrimination on the basis of
Speaker 7: transgender status. Let me just go back to let me
Speaker 7: go to some basics. Do you agree that a school
Speaker 7: may have separate teams for a category of students classified
Speaker 7: as boys in a category of students classified as.
Speaker 1: Girls, Yes, your honor.
Speaker 7: If it does that, then is it not necessary for
Speaker 7: there to be for equal protection purposes? If that is
Speaker 7: challenged under the equal protection clause, an understanding of what
Speaker 7: it means to be a boy or a girl or
Speaker 7: a man oral woman?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 7: And what is that definition for equal protection purposes? What
Speaker 7: does what does it mean to be a boy or
Speaker 7: a girl or a man oral woman?
Speaker 8: Sorryvisenters to your question. I think that the underlying enactment,
Speaker 8: whatever it was, the policy, the law, the would have
Speaker 8: to we'd have to have an understanding of how the
Speaker 8: state or the government was just understanding that term to
Speaker 8: figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do
Speaker 8: not have a definition for the court, and we don't
Speaker 8: take issue with the We're not disputing the definition here.
Speaker 8: What we're saying is that the way it applies in
Speaker 8: practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams,
Speaker 8: and that there's a subset of those birth sex males
Speaker 8: where it doesn't make sense to do so according to
Speaker 8: the state's own interest.
Speaker 7: Well, how can a court determine whether there's discrimination on
Speaker 7: the basis of sex without knowing what sex memes for
Speaker 7: equal protection purposes?
Speaker 8: I think here we just knowed. We basically know that
Speaker 8: the that they've identified, pursuing to their own statue, Lindsay
Speaker 8: qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being excluded
Speaker 8: categorically from the women's teams.
Speaker 1: As the statute.
Speaker 8: So we're taking the statues's definitions as we find them,
Speaker 8: and we don't dispute them. We're just trying to figure
Speaker 8: out do they create an equal protection problem?
Speaker 1: Okayma Haamanahamana, one of the smartest people in America, faced
Speaker 1: with look, what's a man or what's a woman? Because
Speaker 1: we've got to define that.
Speaker 2: The reason I thought that was a boo yah boo.
Speaker 2: I mean it's that's that's a pretty good way to
Speaker 2: boil it down. Do you think there should be boys
Speaker 2: games and girls teams?
Speaker 1: Yes? Okay, well then we got to define what a
Speaker 1: boy and a girl is, right, Okay? And finally this, uh,
Speaker 1: this is one of the attorneys who was talking to
Speaker 1: Atlanta Kagan, who is very very very bright, talking about
Speaker 1: how what you're saying is you can exclude boys from girls'
Speaker 1: sports unless they're essentially so girlish they ought to be
Speaker 1: able to play. But where does that end? It sounded
Speaker 1: like this.
Speaker 6: I'm having trouble coming up with what it could look
Speaker 6: like because it will always be possible to carve the
Speaker 6: class down further, right. I mean, so if they say
Speaker 6: that their class, that they're their subclass I guess subclass
Speaker 6: of males is males who identify as transgender, then we
Speaker 6: would come back and say, well, only something like ten
Speaker 6: percent of males who identify as transgender take the hystosteran suppression.
Speaker 6: And then they might say, well, okay, no, the class
Speaker 6: is just the males who take the distosteran suppression, and
Speaker 6: then we might come back and say, well, according to
Speaker 6: the record, according to their own expert, of males who
Speaker 6: take testosterone suppression, only one quarter of them are able
Speaker 6: to achieve the appropriate like to able achieve ordinary levels
Speaker 6: of testosterone for women, and the other three quarters would
Speaker 6: still have an advantage, and therefore we'd be justified. Seventy
Speaker 6: five percent pretty good fit and intermediate scrutiny, and we'd
Speaker 6: be justified with the law. But then they can just
Speaker 6: change the class again. They can say, aha, no, our
Speaker 6: class is males who identify as transgender, who suppress their
Speaker 6: testosterone and who suppessed their testosterone successfully and are able
Speaker 6: to get it down to where they don't have a
Speaker 6: competitive advantage. And at that point we can say, if
Speaker 6: you can define the class so precisely, you're going to
Speaker 6: force the state to define the class that precisely. It's
Speaker 6: going to be enormously burdensome for everyone. And the state
Speaker 6: can never win because whenever the state points to the
Speaker 6: fit in the statute, do they just redefine their class
Speaker 6: as only the people who are outside the fit.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Yeah, that's a powerful argument. I hope you
Speaker 1: followed at least to some extent, and we'll follow up
Speaker 1: again with the fabulous on a stage voting from the
Speaker 1: Pacific Legal Foundation in just moments.
Speaker 2: I wish they'd release their ruling, especially if it's if
Speaker 2: they're all like this one's obvious soon because you got a.
Speaker 1: Whole spring full of high school sports that are going
Speaker 1: to happen around the country. Nah, you got to write
Speaker 1: them out with all the fancy words and the citations.
Speaker 1: Who has the time, Armstrong and getty.
Speaker 9: This notion that this is really just about the definition of.
Speaker 5: We accept that you can accept separate.
Speaker 9: Boys and girls, and we are now looking at the
Speaker 9: definition of a girl and we're saying only people who
Speaker 9: were girl assigned at birth qualify.
Speaker 1: Yeah, people signed their sex at birth. It's observed anyway.
Speaker 1: It's all about the lingo with the progressive activists and
Speaker 1: radical gender theory. They were before the Supreme Court yesterday
Speaker 1: a couple of courses involved, I'm sorry, a couple of
Speaker 1: cases involving boys playing in girls' sports, and Anastasia Bodeny,
Speaker 1: Senior Attorney for Equality and Opportunity. The Pacific Legal Foundation
Speaker 1: was like us, listening and watching with great interest and
Speaker 1: has thoughts on what happened Onnastasia welcome. How are you,
Speaker 1: I'm doing well. Thanks for having me. So with the
Speaker 1: appropriate and inevitable caveats that it's difficult to read the
Speaker 1: tea leaves blah blah blah from the oral arguments, what
Speaker 1: do you think of the whole thing?
Speaker 10: Yeah, you know, less difficult to read here than the
Speaker 10: usual case, especially given that even the Washington Post yesterday,
Speaker 10: the headline before oral arguments was that neither public opinion
Speaker 10: nor scientific scientific consensus support the people challenging these laws
Speaker 10: that limit sports to biological sex. So, you know, I
Speaker 10: think public opinion has really turned, and I think that
Speaker 10: will no doubt have an influence on the court. But yeah,
Speaker 10: the argument was really interesting, really spicy, and just give
Speaker 10: you some background. You know, given this recent phenomenon of
Speaker 10: trans women competing in female sports, twenty seven states have
Speaker 10: passed laws now limiting sports to biological sex. That's the majority. Again,
Speaker 10: you can really see how the tide has turned. But
Speaker 10: of course, Idaho and West Virginia were among the first,
Speaker 10: and so this involved a challenge to their laws by
Speaker 10: trans people in sports who want to compete in women's sports.
Speaker 10: So you have the athletes on one side, the states
Speaker 10: on the other, and then we actually had some interveners
Speaker 10: who were female athletes who who feel that this is
Speaker 10: unconstitutional and violates their rights. Their briefs were really particularly
Speaker 10: interesting because it puts it in human terms, and they
Speaker 10: talk about how they ran on the women's track and
Speaker 10: cost country teams at their university and they lost by
Speaker 10: a significant margin to a male athlete who identified as
Speaker 10: a female and who had competed the previous year on
Speaker 10: the men's team and recorded times that would have broken
Speaker 10: national women's records.
Speaker 1: So you can see why.
Speaker 10: They might aggrieved, and it led to this lawsuit, and
Speaker 10: yesterday was oral argument.
Speaker 2: So one thing I'll completely understand if the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: decide that, yes, these states can have laws banning trans
Speaker 2: boys from.
Speaker 1: I always get that, as you know, I'm a conscientious
Speaker 1: objector at even using those terms because it seeds the
Speaker 1: linguistic ground to the radical left. But go on, Jack, Sorry,
Speaker 1: But anyway, if the Supreme Court says, yeah, these states
Speaker 1: can do that, does that have any effect on like
Speaker 1: California where they haven't banned anything. Yeah.
Speaker 10: So that was a big part of the discussion was
Speaker 10: what are the consequences of this case? Does it mean
Speaker 10: that states must separate by biological sex or does it
Speaker 10: merely mean that laws that choose to separate by biological
Speaker 10: sex are constitutional and do not violate our civil rights laws.
Speaker 10: And neither side really wanted to get into that. They
Speaker 10: just wanted to fight over these terms because the consequences
Speaker 10: could be really far reaching on the other side, because
Speaker 10: you know, in the first lawsuit, the first law there's
Speaker 10: two lawsuits, one against West Virginia and one against Idaho.
Speaker 10: And in the first lawsuit, so the challenger is actually
Speaker 10: an athlete who had taken some strides to eliminate their
Speaker 10: so called physical biological advantage by taking uh, suppressing their
Speaker 10: tosostgrone for one year. And so they said, hey, maybe
Speaker 10: you can separate men and women by sex, but not me,
Speaker 10: because I have eliminated my physical advantage. But as the
Speaker 10: justices pointed out, the question then becomes, Okay, well, do
Speaker 10: we have to let in all men now who don't
Speaker 10: have a physical advantage for whatever reason, Men who are
Speaker 10: shorter who happen to have less cisostrone. You know that there's.
Speaker 1: People who aren't like myself what I.
Speaker 10: Count exactly right. But on the other hand, I'm accepting
Speaker 10: that your hypothetical to be true, then yes, exactly right, Well,
Speaker 10: we have to let you into But on the other hand,
Speaker 10: you know, the other side wants to argue that you
Speaker 10: have to have strict lines based on differences, and then
Speaker 10: the justice says the justices said, well, does that mean
Speaker 10: that universities can create different programs for chess because we
Speaker 10: know that men perform better at chess the science is there.
Speaker 10: Does that mean now that they can discriminate against women
Speaker 10: in chess because you're saying that that universities have to
Speaker 10: draw this bright line or what about we know that
Speaker 10: in some areas, and of course it depends on subject
Speaker 10: and whatnot, but in some areas women perform better academically.
Speaker 10: Does that now mean that schools can create a remedial
Speaker 10: program for men and exclude women. So there was a
Speaker 10: lot of line drawing problems on either side, and both
Speaker 10: parties just wanted to skirt that and say, hey, take
Speaker 10: let's just talk about this case and how far this case.
Speaker 1: I didn't know men were generally better that chess than women.
Speaker 1: Didn't know that I'm terrible at chess for the record,
Speaker 1: So Anastasia, it's where you have. It seemed pretty clear
Speaker 1: to me, and I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but you
Speaker 1: have a self evident class male and female that has
Speaker 1: never in the history of humankind been disputed. And the
Speaker 1: argument that, well, there's some men that are so girlish
Speaker 1: that let's not even count them as men. It's just
Speaker 1: utterly unworkable on a societal level. As we played one
Speaker 1: of the clips in the last segment, and I suspect
Speaker 1: you're right that the Supreme Court is going to go
Speaker 1: the way it seems clear that they will. But am
Speaker 1: I also correct that they didn't really get into Title
Speaker 1: nine per se, because if you recognize that there are
Speaker 1: men and there are women, but some men are not
Speaker 1: very manly, so we got to let them in with
Speaker 1: the way, you've got to tear up Title nine and
Speaker 1: end it because it has no meaning anymore. It gets
Speaker 1: into an incredibly cumbersome how manly is he? Individual test?
Speaker 1: In every aspect of American life that's affected by Title nine.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And what's interesting is
Speaker 10: a few years ago, under Title six, which governs discrimination
Speaker 10: in the workplace, there was a Supreme Court case asking whether,
Speaker 10: which again for bids discrimination basis of sets in the
Speaker 10: workplace necessarily also bads discrimination on the basis of transgender
Speaker 10: status and just Discorsich in that case wrote the opinion saying,
Speaker 10: you know, discrimination based on sex is necessarily discrimination based
Speaker 10: on trans gender status. And so now the plaintiffs are
Speaker 10: seizing on that in this case and saying, see, the
Speaker 10: same thing is true in Title mine. But Title nine
Speaker 10: really brings out the absurdity of that argument, because you know,
Speaker 10: if you talk about workplace discrimination, it's easy to say, Okay,
Speaker 10: we shouldn't have you know, I think the equities are like, okay,
Speaker 10: let's not discriminate. We don't want to have discrimination against
Speaker 10: transgender people. But in Title nine, you are now pitting
Speaker 10: women against the transgender people because saying that we can't
Speaker 10: discriminate against transgender people now necessarily infringes the right of
Speaker 10: women to compete fairly, which was the entire purpose of
Speaker 10: Title nine. So it's true Title nine is bringing out
Speaker 10: a lot of these absurdities that have sort of been
Speaker 10: swept under the rug in previous cases and showing how
Speaker 10: the whole thing really is not workable.
Speaker 1: In the same way, if.
Speaker 2: It comes down to a how manly is the man?
Speaker 2: Can he participate in women's sports and men's sports. Then
Speaker 2: you got a guy who drives a truck, but like
Speaker 2: salsa dancing. You know, it's a tweeter.
Speaker 1: You got to try to figure out case by case.
Speaker 1: Incredibly cumbersome.
Speaker 2: I've heard some legal experts say this could be like
Speaker 2: very narrow. It's just it upholds these states that said
Speaker 2: you can't do this and doesn't go rund any further
Speaker 2: than that. Another I've heard other legal experts say this
Speaker 2: could like have an effect on you know, the whole
Speaker 2: gender neutral bathroom thing and all kinds of far reaching
Speaker 2: parts of the trans discussion.
Speaker 1: Where do you land on that?
Speaker 10: You know, the Court likes to take incremental steps. Everybody
Speaker 10: thinks that the Court is some imperial court just imposing
Speaker 10: their opinions and taking over the world, when in reality,
Speaker 10: if you look at it, the Court is doing less
Speaker 10: work than ever. They're taking fewer cases than that two
Speaker 10: they yeah, but I would like the Court to do more.
Speaker 10: You know, that's their job. They're the last bastion for
Speaker 10: our liberties when the legislature fails to protect our rights,
Speaker 10: and so there, I think it'll be narrow. And what's
Speaker 10: even more interesting is one of the plaintiffs in the case,
Speaker 10: the plaintiffs who took steps to mitigate their physical advantage
Speaker 10: due to sex actually ask the court to dismiss their case.
Speaker 10: That person said, I don't plan on doing sports anymore
Speaker 10: in college. Just dismiss this case. I don't want to
Speaker 10: deal with it. And the court so far has said, no,
Speaker 10: we're going to hear it anyway. We already granted cert.
Speaker 10: You can't change your mind now that we granted cert
Speaker 10: and try to get the case dismissed. But that's a
Speaker 10: pretty interesting thing. That's very unusual. Typically, if plaintiffs went
Speaker 10: out of a case, the court is more than happy
Speaker 10: to get it off their docket and not have to
Speaker 10: deal with these hot button topics. And I kind of wonder, now,
Speaker 10: after or argument, which was, you know, pretty difficult to
Speaker 10: sort through, if the court will in fact dismiss that
Speaker 10: case because the plaintiff doesn't want it.
Speaker 1: So I need to at least bully tip my cap
Speaker 1: again to the notion that I can't believe we're having
Speaker 1: to answer and or ask an answer these questions about
Speaker 1: the most intrinsic and obvious facets to human life. But
Speaker 1: helped me out because I'm not a constitutional attorney. There
Speaker 1: is a very brief description of what forms a class
Speaker 1: of people, like a protected class. Does that ring a bell?
Speaker 11: Yes?
Speaker 10: Typically, yeah, our civil rights laws and equal protection law
Speaker 10: protects classes with traits.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, can you repeat that, you glitch out? Oh?
Speaker 10: Yes, Typically our civil rights laws protect you know, type
Speaker 10: classes of people with immutable characteristics.
Speaker 1: Right right, exactly, So like cool and uncool could not
Speaker 1: be a protected class or fun and a real drag.
Speaker 1: I mean, for instance, and exactly we played earlier a
Speaker 1: guy who goes to generally left wing protests and he
Speaker 1: claims to be trans indigenous. He is, he is a
Speaker 1: white guy, but he's now he identifies as an indigenous person.
Speaker 1: And it's to me it's as absurd to claim you
Speaker 1: are a woman as a man because you've decided to
Speaker 1: be a woman. I mean, otherwise you could like have
Speaker 1: exceptions to civil rights law for a black guy who
Speaker 1: like to cite some terrible cliches, doesn't like to dance
Speaker 1: and quote unquote sounds like a white man and is
Speaker 1: republican and the rest of it, because psychically, psychologically his
Speaker 1: self conception is very much white. I mean, that's that
Speaker 1: is considered repugnant and silly. But to say, well, I'm
Speaker 1: totally a girl now, So I mean, and I grant
Speaker 1: that there could be neurological situations, but didn't he get
Speaker 1: the sense that the Justice Alito especially was asking what
Speaker 1: the hell are we talking about here? Oh?
Speaker 10: Yeah, And you know, I love Justice Alito argument. He's
Speaker 10: a fan past the lawyer, and he acts like a
Speaker 10: lawyer on the bench. And you know, one of the
Speaker 10: things you said in argument yesterday was, well, how about
Speaker 10: those women who don't want to compete against trans athletes?
Speaker 10: Are you calling them bigots? You know, you just flat
Speaker 10: out asked that question. And so he was bringing out
Speaker 10: some of this absurdity. But another person who has brought
Speaker 10: out that absurdity is Justice Barrett. Because of course, the
Speaker 10: planiffs here are trying to say, hey, we are a
Speaker 10: protected class and we have historically been subject to discrimination,
Speaker 10: and so we get heightened protection under civil rights laws.
Speaker 10: They say discrimination based on trensender status is special and
Speaker 10: gets heightened protection compared to anybody else who might sue.
Speaker 10: And so far the Court hasn't answered that question. But
Speaker 10: last term Justice Barrett wrote a separate, a concurring opinion
Speaker 10: that's not binding on the court, but just articulating her
Speaker 10: views where she said that can't possibly be true because
Speaker 10: being TRAMS is not an immutable characteristic. It can mean
Speaker 10: many things. It's a huge class of people that's constantly
Speaker 10: changing on a whole bunch of decisions and different traits,
Speaker 10: and you know, it spans all these different ideas of
Speaker 10: self identification. And also, you have not been subject as
Speaker 10: a class to whatever that class means, to the same
Speaker 10: type of state sponsored discrimination as say, minority races or
Speaker 10: minority religions. And so she already went out in a
Speaker 10: separate opinion last year. She stepped out and said that, like, hey,
Speaker 10: this is not a class that gets special protection. So far,
Speaker 10: the court hasn't answered that question, and we might get
Speaker 10: it in this case. And I suspect they will take
Speaker 10: your view of things, which is, we can't even hardly
Speaker 10: identify this class, let alone say that it's entitled to
Speaker 10: some sort of special protection.
Speaker 2: Well, last quick question, because we're out of time and
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to be a shock jock here. Did
Speaker 2: the terms penis or vagina ever come up at any point?
Speaker 10: No, I did hear pelvis?
Speaker 1: This kind of interesting when that hell, yeah, well, you know,
Speaker 1: sex identicy fight at birth or identified. No, it's a
Speaker 1: signed which is hilarious and again prejudicial verbally speaking, Anastasia
Speaker 1: has written a really super interesting column, the most Unorthodox
Speaker 1: Descent You've never read about the presidential war Powers. I'm
Speaker 1: afraid we're out of time, but we'll have a link
Speaker 1: at Armstrong and Giddy dot com. It's definitely worth a think, Anastasia.
Speaker 1: I wish we had more time, but we'll talk again soon.
Speaker 1: Well done, Thanks thanks for having me by bye s.
Speaker 1: Maybe those terms had come up with someone Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 1: Does this a person have a penis or a vagina?
Speaker 1: You know that's sort Did they ever have a penis? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Just you know, getting down to the nuts and bolts
Speaker 1: of it if you will. Oh, they didn't know. Okay,
Speaker 1: we will finish strong next. Yeah.
Speaker 11: Trump is still talking about taking over at Greenland, and
Speaker 11: he said that if we invaded, their only defense would
Speaker 11: be two dog sleds. Christie Noman was like, I can
Speaker 11: take care of those.
Speaker 2: Mmm, give me one more joke, Michael, take another shot
Speaker 2: at a joke At the back.
Speaker 11: Chuckie Cheese said that he wants to make a film
Speaker 11: about the franchise.
Speaker 1: It'll be a horror movie.
Speaker 11: When someone brings a black light into a Chuckie.
Speaker 2: Cheese, which, you know, similar to that movie about Ray
Speaker 2: crock and McDonald's.
Speaker 1: Could be very interesting.
Speaker 2: I like that sort of biopick about somebody starting an
Speaker 2: incredibly successful business.
Speaker 1: We have a new highest grossing actor of all time.
Speaker 2: Up until like yesterday when the new news came out,
Speaker 2: it was Scarlett Johanson. I didn't realize that she's the
Speaker 2: highest grossing actor of all time. Now, I gotta believe
Speaker 2: this stuff is not adjusted for inflation. Almost certainly isn't.
Speaker 2: Otherwise I think it'd be Schwarzenegger probably.
Speaker 1: And unless it's a one man show, one woman show,
Speaker 1: how do you make shirt? Anyway? Because Scargo's in the
Speaker 1: the silly superhero movies, right, yeah, but I think you're
Speaker 1: all ensemble movies, right Storkmaker or.
Speaker 2: Burt Reynolds or I don't know, lots of people if
Speaker 2: you adjusted for inflation, that were really really big deals
Speaker 2: back in the day. But anyway, it's now Zoe Saldana,
Speaker 2: who I wouldn't be able to pick out of a
Speaker 2: lineup actually, but she's forty seven years old and she
Speaker 2: was in those Avatar movies and all three of them
Speaker 2: have been giant the like top three grossing movies of
Speaker 2: all time, again not adjusted for inflation, because they never do.
Speaker 1: For these things and have h and has you know
Speaker 1: learned commentators have mentioned nobody ever references them. Never, Nobody
Speaker 1: ever like draws a metaphor or sites a key line
Speaker 1: or they have.
Speaker 2: This reminds me of what never. Yeah, as art, they
Speaker 2: have no mind share. It's interesting.
Speaker 1: And there's Jodren this show with the couple Katie Green
Speaker 1: and Michael langel Lloyd. There friends, They're like that, why
Speaker 1: are you lurking in the store? The final thought?
Speaker 8: People, they have to go.
Speaker 1: Whoever that is is lurking at the edge of the woods. Uh,
Speaker 1: here's your host for final thoughts, Joe Oh Geddy. Let's
Speaker 1: get a final thought from everybody on the crew. To
Speaker 1: wrap up the show. There is Michael Langelower, technical director, Michael,
Speaker 1: what's your final thought? I'm looking forward to one more
Speaker 1: thing today. Katie stopped me this morning and said I
Speaker 1: got a really good thing for one more thing today
Speaker 1: and she did want to reveal what it was. So awesome,
Speaker 1: so too now all right, great? Speaking of Katie Green,
Speaker 1: are esteemed and use woman? Katie, what's your final thought.
Speaker 2: My final thought is that I am feeling a new
Speaker 2: form of anger every time I hear cis woman.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh, I know, I know. Don't seed that ground
Speaker 1: to the radicals. Don't use their invented terminology. Jack of
Speaker 1: funnel thought. Yeah, I'm going to try to.
Speaker 2: Pull myself out of reading any of your all comments
Speaker 2: on anything, and whether you're commenting on us or just
Speaker 2: stuff in general, the comment section of the world is
Speaker 2: a disease.
Speaker 1: And it will only make you less happy. That has
Speaker 1: been my experience, and give you a distorted idea of
Speaker 1: what people think. Very much. Yeah, yeah, anyway, to quote
Speaker 1: a great piece in the Free Press. If we think
Speaker 1: female means human beings with low circulating osterone, then of
Speaker 1: course anyone who fits that category should be allowed to
Speaker 1: play in female sports. But most Americans do not take
Speaker 1: that view about what a woman is, and never have.
Speaker 1: I've recognized the difference between men and women and been
Speaker 1: delighted by it from a very early age. Trust me,
Speaker 1: I'm an expert. Armstrong and Getdy rabbing up another grueling
Speaker 1: for our workday. So many people, thanks so a little time.
Speaker 1: Go to armstrong and geddy dot com. Drop us a
Speaker 1: reasonable intelligent note male bag at Armstrong and Geddy dot com.
Speaker 1: Hit the hotlings, hit Katie's corner, pick up some swag,
Speaker 1: get the fiolickin party T shirt. We're about to have
Speaker 1: our first convention next year. We're not not really, We'll
Speaker 1: see you tomorrow. God bless them. Erica Audio Smofo. It's
Speaker 1: a hustle. Yeah, it's kind of bogus. It's a wild animal.
Speaker 1: Joey baby. Yes, we drank beer. I tell you what.
Speaker 1: You got a tiger and two monkeys. You get a
Speaker 1: case of beer. You got a party. Experts. Tell me
Speaker 1: all bloody hell is going to break loose. Okay, then
Speaker 1: we'll bring this fool in. Your name's not but three
Speaker 1: thousand you yoho and that high note. Thank you all
Speaker 1: very much, Armstrong and Getdy