April 30, 2025 • 30 mins
Thanks to Lumen for sponsoring! To get 15% off, go to https://lumen.me/BRAD and start improving your health today.
Hey, so... this is unhinged. Transgender YouTuber Samantha Lux just viciously lashed out at JK Rowling after a UK Supreme Court ruling that shouldn't actually be controversial. I break this down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, an update on Trump vs Amazon and identitarian insanity continues to plague the Democratic Party.
CHECK OUT THE MERCH: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
SEND ME A VOICE NOTE: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Sis women have a right to not have a man
in their shelter. Genuinely, this is simply bullying to bully.
I love an old tags chop.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Sorry, the trans YouTuber is lashing out a JK Rolling
after a huge UK Supreme Court decision. We react to this,
plus more drama between Trump and Amazon, and more disarray
inside the Democratic Party on today's episode of the Brad
(00:31):
Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where I take on
the craziest ideas from across the Internet, our media, and
our politics from an independent perspective. Up first, like I mentioned,
we're going to take a look at a really wild
video that the transgender YouTuber Samantha Lux just put out
where she pretty viciously attacks JK Rolling and spreads a
lot of misinformation and misunderstandings about a big UK Supreme
(00:55):
Court rolling that just came down which declared that under
their anti discrimination laws, woman will be defined to mean
biological women, not including transgender women with gender recognition certificates,
although importantly they are still protected under anti discrimination law,
just under the gender identity category instead. Here's some NBC
(01:16):
News coverage to catch up on the ruling if you
missed it.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
A landmark ruling from the British Supreme Court setting out
how women are defined in law.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms
women and sex in the Equality Act twenty to ten
refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
In other words, sex is assigned at birth and trans women,
including those who've undergone gender reassignment, are not legally considered women.
Activist Jane Fay, director of Transactual UK, is devastated.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
Because effectively what this decision to us is exclude trans
people from society.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
But outside the court cheers from supporters of the decision,
including from one of the activists who led the campaign.
Speaker 5 (02:08):
This is not about prejudice or biga try as some
people would say. It's just about saying that there are
differences and biology is one of those differences.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
And it's ruling. The UK Supreme Court stress that this
legal definition does not strip trans rights, as they would
still be protected by anti discrimination laws, but the decision
could affect policy decisions related to participation in sports, the military,
and female only spaces.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
So this ruling is actually fairly nuanced and it does
not in fact remove anti discrimination protections for trans people,
but it is of course, leading to kind of a
meltdown and a lot of alarmism from transgender commentators from
TikTok to YouTube to cable news, and unsurprisingly, Samantha Lox
has fallen into that category. She's a very prominent transgender
(03:00):
woman YouTuber and her video about this was unfortunately very
misinformed and at times very nasty, in particular towards JK
Rowling in some truly hypocritical ways, and we're going to
walk through them. Here's the first clip from Samantha's video.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Let's just really think about this. Right for Women Scotland,
this feminist group fighting for equal rights for women RIGHT,
campaigned to get protections taken away from transwomen. Right. The
Equality Act is a non discrimination act. They tried to
get us removed. They did get us removed, but that
was their goal, to get us out of a non
discrimination act. If that doesn't tell you the type of
people they are, I don't know what will.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
So first things first, this is just factually incorrect. Trans
people did not get removed from the Equality Act. They
didn't get removed from anti discrimination protections in the UK.
They are still covered and still protected under the gender
Identity Provision of that Act, they are just distinguished from
biological women as the definition of women, and so allowing
(04:01):
for potentially segregated sex segregated spaces, whether it's sports or
women's shelters or prisons in the law, drawing an important
distinction in the sex and gender category, but not removing
protections for trans people from the Equality Act. That is
totally incorrect, misinformation and for some reason, the fact that
trans people are still protected was entirely left out of
(04:24):
Samantha's more than twenty minute video. And I have an
issue with that. You might disagree with this ruling personally,
I think it's common sense. But if even if you
disagree with it, don't lie, don't mislead your audience like this.
And I'm sorry, but I just have to roll my
eyes at this idea that how they disagree with an
aspect of discrimination law, how that tells you everything you
need to know about them. They must be evil. Actually, no,
(04:45):
it's okay to disagree with a particular element of a
complicated civil law and it doesn't make you an evil
meaning it's actually not evil or mean that some UK
feminists wanted sex segregated prisons and women's shelters for battered
women and the like, and you suggesting otherwise reveals a
real lack of intellectual humility. People can disagree with you
(05:07):
for reasons other than their evil meanings. Now the clips
from Samantha's video actually get crazier and much more so
incredibly toxic, in particular when she talks about JK. Rowling.
We're going to get into all of that after this.
I don't want to end up like these people.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
But I ate today as.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
A fatty good morning buddies, a pancakes, Thank.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
You so much.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
That's why I use Lumen, an amazing tool that helps
me feel better in my body and maintain a healthy weight.
Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a
device that measures your metabolism through your breath and on
the app, it lets you know if you're burning fat
or carbs. It gives you tailor guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep,
and even stress management. You can also breathe into it
before and after workouts and meals, so you know exactly
(05:52):
what's going on with your body in real time, and
Luman will give you tips to stay on top of
your health game. It can also track your cycle as
well as the onset of menopause, and adjust your recommendations
to help keep your metabolism healthy during hormonal changes so
you can keep up your energy and stave off cravings.
So if you want to take the next step in
your health journey, go to lumen dot me slash brad
(06:14):
to get fifteen percent off your lumen That is l
Umn dot m e slash brad for fifteen percent off
your purchase. Thank you Luhman for sponsoring today's episode, and
now back to the show. So this next part of
Samantha's video made me do a double take when I
listened to it. Take a listen.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
The single sex spaces that will be affected because of
this ruling include women's bathrooms, changing boards, hostels, sports clubs,
and even more insidious hospital wards, prisons, and domestic violence shelters.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
I'm sorry, wtf did Samantha just suggest that it is insidious,
meaning like sinister, for feminists to want sex segregated prisons
and abuse shelters. I'm sorry. What so it's evil now
and bad for them to even want to keep people
(07:09):
who are biologically male out of those spaces. That is
delulu beyond belief. I can't really speak to how the
UK prison system operates, obviously, but here in America, in
some parts of America, in California, for example, the Democrats
have passed laws that literally allow any biologically male person
who claims to be transgender or non binary and goes
(07:29):
through a few steps to certify that, even a registered
sex offender or somebody who's being in prison for a
sex crime against women, can be placed into women's prisons.
And many cases like that have occurred. It is not
sinister to oppose that, to think that I actually agree,
I think trans prisoners maybe need a separate war. They
shouldn't be put in men's prisons because they will be
(07:49):
abused and harmed. But to not want to open that
door to biological males being put in women's prisons is
not insidious. It is common sensical and a base matter
of safety and protection of women. But apparently we're bullies
if we believe this. Take a listen to this next clip.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
There is so, so so much evidence that shows that
trans people are actually disproportionately the target of domestic violence
and domestic assaults, so we need these resources as well.
But the argument against it is that cis women or
natal born women and whatever you want to call them
have a right to not have a man in their
shelter or in their space and genuinely fun this is
(08:32):
simply bullying to bully.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Did she just start to cuss out women in women's
shelters who don't want biological males in the shelter with
them and then have to censor herself. I think that's
what happened here, And yaikes, it's just not bullying for
people to not want trans women again who are biologically male,
to be in women's shelters, because even if like genuine
(08:56):
trans women who've been through the whole process and who
very much pass Samantha, even if many wouldn't necessarily have
an issue with them, there's no real way to allow
them into women's shelters, which even then some women might
feel uncomfortable with. But I think isn't the real issue
without opening the floodgates to people with beards and muscles
coming in and claiming their women or non binary and yes,
making abused women uncomfortable. That is not reasonable, it's not fair,
(09:20):
it's not something you should be pushing for, and it's
certainly not bullying to oppose it. I absolutely understand that
trans people are often victimized in many of these same situations,
and I think that's horrible. But there are shelters that
are open to both genders, to men, women and trans
people that they can go to. Maybe we need more
of those shelters, Maybe we need LGBT specific shelters. I'm
(09:43):
open to all of that. But the answer is not
to tell biological women who have been abused to suck
it up in cope and let biological males into their
safe spaces. That's demented. But I think a lot of
this just stems from some pretty fun unda mental disagreements.
As you can see in this clip.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Trans women are not men. We are not threats to
cys gender women. Firstly, for rechoocing us down to our
body parts is not very feminist of you, feminist group.
But secondly, trans women should not have to be refused
shelter and die in the streets because you're uncomfortable with
the fact that I'm trans. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Does
(10:24):
that make any fucking sense? Life is uncomfortable if anybody
knows that it's the trans community. Okay, if you are
not in danger, get over it.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
So there's a lot there quite something to tell women.
Battered women in this case, if you're not in danger,
get over it now, They actually, with their trauma and
their PTSD, have legitimate concerns that go beyond just emotional snowflakery.
Because I agree with the sentiment if you're not in danger,
get over it apply to most situations, but battered women
(10:55):
seeking refuge in a female only space not one. I
would personally invoke that sense a minute. Personally, that's just me,
and I sure hope Samantha has that same energy for
people who are filming themselves crying in their car because
they got misgendered and people won't incorrectly refer to them
as non binary and they them. But something tells me
Samantha is probably a lot more sympathetic in those kinds
(11:16):
of cases. I could be wrong now. The beginning of
this clip, trans women are not men really defines on
what your definition of man is. Technically, if you're defining
man as an adult human male, then trans women are men.
That is just a fact. Because it is an indisputable
fact that trans women are biological males. I'm happy to
let them live life in many ways as women. If
(11:39):
that's what will make them happiest. I'm happy to refer
to them with preferred pronouns and names within reason. I'm
not calling anybody's these are too bad. But sex is
defined by the structure of your reproductive system, and trans
women in almost all cases have reproductive systems oriented towards
the production of sperm aka they are biologically male. Change
(12:00):
their outward appearance. They can live life however they want,
call themselves whatever they want. All of that's cool, But
the facts are still the facts. And it's not reductive
or anti feminists to define sex by body parts. It's
just factual. So to Samantha's other point, I do agree
that many trans people are not threats to women or
anybody and are just otherwise normal people who want to
(12:21):
contribute to society, and I totally believe that. I think
it's wrong to demonize or stigmatize any group based in
the actions of some individuals. But you're also like denying
reality if you're saying, well, no, trans people are a
threat to women. Ever, that's absolutely not the case, and
in particular, the real threat, in my view, has been
people who aren't actually trans in the traditional sense, but
(12:41):
exploit the ambiguity and the gray area of these trans
accepting policies to then terrorize and harm women. And we've
seen example after example of that from the troll in Canada,
Jessica Unive, who tried to use the legal system to
force female waxers to wax her balls. Yes, that's a
real story, that's a real sentence, I was forced to say.
(13:04):
I remember at the time, I was working at a magazine,
in a digital magazine, and I wrote an article just
in quotes. The title was wax my balls, bigot. But
obviously there are people like this. There are people like
the trans women who I think are actually fetishists who
will go to nude female only spas and walk around
with their dingdong out. Obviously those people are trying to
(13:27):
antagonize women, are exploiting this ambiguity to harm people in
their own bizarre kind of satisfaction or what have you.
And of course that's not all trans people, or necessarily
even most. But the point is that it's impossible or
very difficult to draw lines in a way that opens
the door to trans people without also opening the door
to many of these people. And of course I agree
(13:49):
that trans people should not be categorically banned from shelters
or refused shelter and sent to die on the street.
But I really don't know what Samantha is talking about here,
because what people are saying is that trans women in
this case should go to shelters that accept people of
both genders which do exist, not that they should be
banned from shelters entirely. And like me, for example, as
(14:10):
a SIS man, I'm not allowed to go to women's shelters.
That doesn't mean I'm left to die in the streets
if I were to be victimized, which thankfully I haven't been.
So that bit of Samantha's brant here just comes off
as alarmists and hysterical, and honestly, a lot of Samantha's
commentary comes off as completely out of touch with like
(14:30):
what the actual other side actually believes, like this next class.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
What this means is that places are now able to
create single sex spaces and exclude trans women from those spaces.
We've heard this complaint a million times right in all
different shapes, all different sizes, in all different appearances. You
could say trans women shouldn't be allowed into women's bathrooms
because they're gonna they're gonna hurt women. No evidence of that.
Trans identified men shouldn't be allowed into women's sports because
(14:57):
they'll dominate women's sports and no women will win. No
evidence of that. And I even discussed in my channel
a situation where a group was complaining that they were
not allowed to exclude transomen from their dating game, their
dating show, or whatever the fuck they were doing, claiming
that cis gender lesbians are not interested in transwomen and
they should be able to, you know, not allow trans
(15:17):
women to be there. And for this one, I actually
have a lot of evidence that proves that the opposite
is true. Lesbians left me. What all of these have
in common is a lack of evidence of potential harm
and an underlying motivation of personal disapproval of trans people.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
So there's a lot to unpack here. And I actually
do acknowledge that in some cases people are motivated by
disgusted or disapproval towards trans people, and I think that's
harmful and toxic and misguided. But a lot of people aren't.
A lot of people hold these positions in good faith.
And I don't disapprove of you as a trans woman. Living, however,
will make you happiest, I truly don't, but I still
(15:55):
think that it's unreasonable and unfair to allow biological males
into women's sports and these other things that you've mentioned now.
I actually don't support bathroom bills like strictly banning trans
women from women's bathrooms. I think they're tough to enforce
and often a solution in search of a problem. I've
talked about this extensively in other episodes on my channel
if you're interested. But as for sports, for example, Samantha's
(16:18):
just like beating the crap out of a straw man,
like she really doesn't seem to understand what serious, good
faith critics of trans women and women's sports actually believe.
Maybe you could find some people out there who have
said this, but the argument has never really been not
from serious people. Trans women are going to dominate all
of women's sports and win all the awards and medals,
and women will never biological women will never win again.
(16:41):
Maybe you could find somebody who says that somewhere, but
that's not the main criticism. It's obviously true that trans
people are a small percentage of the population, and then
only tiny percentage of them are even competitive athletes. So yeah,
just in raw number terms, it's not going to take
over all of women's sports. I don't argue that either
do most serious critics. The real argument is that when
(17:02):
and where it does happen, it is objectively unfair and,
depending on the sport, unsafe. And that argument is absolutely
valid and backed up by extensive research and evidence. You
can't dismiss valid fairness and safety concerns by just saying, well,
they don't happen that frequently, it's still important and meaningful
(17:23):
and kind of a question of fundamental values. And also
then it's still important to the thousands of women who
have been directly affected, who have been forced to compete
against a male competitor, or who have been forced to
share a changing room with a male competitor in a
way that made them uncomfortable, or what have you. And
it comes off as insensitive and dismissive to say, well,
it's just you know, a small percentage of the population. Sure,
(17:45):
but it's objectively unfair and unreasonable. So denying it by
pointing to the fact that it's a relatively rare occurrence
doesn't actually win you an argument. It just perhaps, I mean,
goes to the fact that yes, this is not an
everyday occurrence. That and I'm sorry, but lesbians should be
allowed to exclude biological males from lesbian dating events. It's
(18:08):
for lesbians, which are females who are interested in other females.
There are you can have your own, buy pan, queer
whatever dating event for people who are interested in dating men, women,
trans people, two spirit they, thems, whatever, knock yourself out,
please power to you, but don't try to stop lesbians
(18:28):
from being lesbians and force biological males into their romantic spaces.
That's actually homophobic. You realize that, right, But apparently, according
to Samantha, people like me who raise these concerns are
responsible for violence. Take a listen to this next clip.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
When ideas like this are proposed by people like for
Women Scotland and approved by the highest court of the land,
people with similar hateful ideas feel emboldened to act out.
I've personally seen an increase of hate on social media.
I've just play not bullying, just bullying trans people just
for the fun of it. A transom was just brutally
attacked and thrown in a river to drown while everybody
(19:08):
around her watched. This is the exact result of this
hatred pervading society.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Now, I actually agree there is a huge uptick in
bullying and nastiness towards trans people, and I don't support that.
You see it on X all the time. It is,
I think, part of a backlash we're living through to
which I trace the roots to the people who pushed
irreversible and unproven medical treatments on gender confused miners and
who stumped for absurd things like biologically male sex offenders
(19:36):
and women's prisons. So people like Samantha Lux, that's why
this backlash is occurring. It's still not right, it's still
not right to be hateful towards people. You've seen this
with like Matt Walsh talking about Dylan Mulvany as like
a subhuman alien piece of filth, basically like it's really
nasty stuff. And I agree it's not okay to act
(19:56):
like that. But you can't blame people for violence unless
they actually advocate for violence, Like it is really bizarre
to cite some random crime that happened in Colombia and
blame UK feminists for it. We have no evidence of
any connection between these things, and unless these feminists have
advocated for violence They can't be blamed for violence just
(20:19):
because they engaged in strong rhetoric or toxic words at times.
I mean, Samantha, you insult and deride turfs, these feminists
that you disagree with all the time. But unless you've
advocated for violence, which I don't believe you have, you
are still not responsible if people go out there and
commit acts of violence against turfs. But under your logic,
(20:39):
you absolutely would be. Just please stop trying to shut
down debate by blaming people for violence they never endorsed
or encouraged. Ironically, by doing so, you're taking blame and
responsibility off of the shoulders of the people who actually
did the violence, which isn't good if you ask me.
And now we're going to get to the first part
(21:00):
of Samantha's video, which is when she talks about JK. Rowling,
who played a role in supporting the group that brought
this UK Supreme Court case. Take a listen to this.
It's really quite something.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
This reeks of Rowling. It reeks of her obsession, Okay,
it reeks of her refusal to let the shit go.
And she is the exact type of person to spend
one hundred thousand dollars or almost on dollars, don't know
the exact number, aroun one hundred thousand dollars to make
a point against chance people well, and then brag about
it on Twitter. I love when a plan comes together.
(21:32):
I love an old tags choke. Sorry, the irony is
is that she positions herself as this greet feminist fighting
for women and children, but looks like she's cause playing
Enter Tait, one of the world's most hated misogynists. But
it fits, honestly, it fits right. Rolling is not a feminist,
So there's a lot here. First and foremost, it's kind
(21:53):
of hilarious to say other people are bullying because they
disagree with you, but also telling feminists who apoe your
agenda that you like to see them choke like JK.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Rolling and by your own logic, if there were violence
or threats against JK. Rowling, which there absolutely have been,
aren't you responsible with your rhetoric here? Now? I don't
even necessarily think so, but you should practice what you
preach a little bit and maybe not speak about people
in that way if you're going to so loosely connect
rhetoric with violence. And I'm sorry but saying you like
(22:24):
to see old hags choke. Isn't helping your case that
trans women are never, ever, ever a threat to biological women.
And look, I agreed with JK. Rowling's older, more nuanced
and moderate takes that she first had when she came out,
and I do think she's become more extreme and her
rhetoric has become more acerbic, for sure, But that's partly
(22:47):
because when she spoke out in a moderate or nuanced way,
she was so viciously attacked, and that does make people
defensive and pushes them more and more into their camp
and their side. And yes, they will get more extreme
still though, comparing her to Andrew Tait on this basis
is offensive and absurd. Andrew Tait is an alleged abuser
of women, with a lot of evidence backing up those accusations.
(23:10):
She's the survivor of abuse. That's pretty wild. Just because
she took a photo, a celebratory photo smoking a cigar.
Lots of people do that, so that's a real stretch
Samantha in a pretty darn and sensitive one at that.
At the end of the day, I unfortunately think that
this kind of rhetoric and commentary from prominent trans people
like Samantha lux is why we're here, is why there's
(23:31):
been so much backlash, because it is so extreme and
so toxic and so devoid of logic and nuance. But Samantha,
if you do see this video, would love to have
a civil conversation with you. Please do feel free to
reach out you guys. Let me know what you think
of this video and this controversy in the comments below,
and do hit that leg button and subscribe if you
haven't yet. By the way, guys, please keep sending me
(23:53):
voice messages. Love going through them. I'm going to do
another episode responding to you. Just leave your first name
doesn't even have to be a real first name. Tell
me something about what's going on in your life or
a crazy experience you had in the past where you
want my thoughts or to ask for advice. The link
will be in the description. And also remember you can
get your de lulu as showing merch and more at
the link in the description as well. Up next, we're
(24:14):
going to do a quick update on the Amazon story
we talked about yesterday, where Amazon, it was reported, was
planning on adding on these search charges on checkouts that
showed how much the tariffs were adding to the cost
of goods. Well. The Trump administration, as we covered yesterday,
was extremely pissed off at them for this and publicly
criticized them. But I actually thought it was a good
(24:35):
idea and I still do. Turns out they're actually not
doing it. Here's reporting from mediaite. Jeff Bezos was very nice.
Trump declares victory in battle with Amazon over tariff price hikes. Subsequently,
Amazon told The Washington Post Jeff Stein that the team
that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Hall store has
considered listing import charges on certain products. This was never
a consideration for the main Amazon site, and nothing has
(24:57):
been implemented on any Amazon prop CNN then reported that
a pissed Trump had called Amazon founder Jeff Bezos after
the punch bowl report broke. Trump spoke about the call
briefly after a reporter asked him a mostly an audible
question about it on the White House lawn Tuesday afternoon. Great,
Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved
the problem very quickly, and he did the right thing.
He's a good guy, answered Trump. So I actually think
(25:19):
this is lame. I think Amazon should have gone forward
with this. People should know what these new taxes will
cost them, even if you think it's worth it. People
should be aware of the downsides. But there's two ways
this could have played out. Maybe it was never actually
a thing and this was all just a miscommunication of sorts.
Or it was a thing they were planning on doing.
Trump called and yelled at them, and Jeff Bezos bowed
(25:41):
and caved and is now claiming they were never really
planning on doing it. I can't answer that. I don't
know which one it was. Either way, kind of a
disappointing end to this saga for me because I do
support price transparency. I do think people should know how
much government adds to the cost of the things we
buy and use and need. So I'm not thrilled about
how this worked out, but maybe you guys are let
(26:03):
me know in the comments. And now we're going to
talk briefly about the Democratic Party because they're not getting better.
They are still very much in shambles and kind of
grappling with a lot of the same insane ideas that
have driven the party off a cliff. And a couple
examples these are just anecdotal examples, but they kind of
hilariously encapsulate that that I want to go over. So
(26:24):
David Hogg, the new one of the new DNC vice chairs.
We talked about him on the show when he was elected.
Is this guy with a super woke past, tons of
cringe old tweets. He emerged tragically as a figure after
the Parkland shooting in Florida. It's a big gun control advocate. Well,
he is making moves as DNC vice chair in a
kind of controversial way, but now might be removed from
(26:45):
the position because somebody is challenging his election on the
grounds that it allegedly violated gender inclusivity mandates. Semaphore reports,
Native American woman gets a chance to topple Hog at
dnc Z, a candidate who failed to win a DNC
committee leadership role, is challenging her defeat, the first threat
(27:06):
to DNC Vice Chair David Hogg since he vowed to
keep backing some primary challenges to incumbents. The DNC's Credentials
Committee will meet virtually on May twelve to consider the
challenge from Caitlin Free, a Native American attorney and party
activist who lost a vice chair spot to Hog at
the party's February first meeting and her complaint shared with
Semaphore by a Democratic source. Free argued that she had
(27:27):
lost a fatally flawed election that violated the DNC charter
and discriminated against three women of color candidates and asks
for two new vice chair elections in February. After several
rounds of voting, the race came down to five candidates, Kenyata, Hog, Free,
and to other women. Kenyada and Hog claimed the open
spots by aggregating votes across ballots and failing to distinguish
(27:49):
between gender categories in a meaningful way. The DNC's process
violated its own charter and by laws, undermining both fairness
and gender diversity, argued Free, a citizen of the Chalk Nation.
So the argument here is literally that it was unfair
and against gender equity that they had men and women
both running for this position and selected two men in
(28:12):
an open and non discriminatory way. The argument is that
DNC rules say they have to force a certain amount
of gender diversity or something that gets complicated in arcane,
and that selecting two men is literally not allowed. Seriously,
that's what they're arguing here, which I don't know if
that's a correct interpretation of the rules. But I do
know they do have We went over this on the show.
(28:33):
In the Democratic Party by laws, they have representation mandates
quotas an identity based exclusion category. You can only have
so many of this type of person in this position.
And the fact that the Democratic Party even still has
those rules, to me, shows they have not fully reckoned
with or overcome the insane identity ideology that took that
(28:54):
party just completely off the reservation. Another funny this is
just a funny anecdotal example. I won't read too much
into it, but there's this centrist Democratic economist and writer
named Noah Smith, and he shared this funny story on
x He wrote, I can shout from the rooftops that
Dems should moderate on immigration. I can denounce the Palestine
movement all day long. But when someone said Dems need
(29:16):
to moderate on trans issues, and I quote tweeted them
with him, maybe a blue sky mob came after me
and I got kicked out of a local rabbit themed
group chat here in San Francisco, the first time I
ever suffered offline consequences for a social media post in
my life. So he got kicked out of a group
chat about rabbits in San Francisco, where he lives, because
(29:39):
he had the political opinion that Dems should maybe moderate
on trans issues. Wow. If that is not a microcosm
of the absurdity of the most extreme progressive thinking in
these hot spots of blue, dark blue life, then I
don't know what is. What do you guys think about
all of this? Please do let me know in the comments.
Do hit that leg button and subscuct bribe if you
(30:00):
haven't yet. Thanks again to Luhman for sponsoring today's episode.
Remember to send a voice note or to check out
the march and we'll talk again real soon.
Sis women have a right to not have a man
in their shelter. Genuinely, this is simply bullying to bully.
I love an old tags chop.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Sorry, the trans YouTuber is lashing out a JK Rolling
after a huge UK Supreme Court decision. We react to this,
plus more drama between Trump and Amazon, and more disarray
inside the Democratic Party on today's episode of the Brad
(00:31):
Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where I take on
the craziest ideas from across the Internet, our media, and
our politics from an independent perspective. Up first, like I mentioned,
we're going to take a look at a really wild
video that the transgender YouTuber Samantha Lux just put out
where she pretty viciously attacks JK Rolling and spreads a
lot of misinformation and misunderstandings about a big UK Supreme
(00:55):
Court rolling that just came down which declared that under
their anti discrimination laws, woman will be defined to mean
biological women, not including transgender women with gender recognition certificates,
although importantly they are still protected under anti discrimination law,
just under the gender identity category instead. Here's some NBC
(01:16):
News coverage to catch up on the ruling if you
missed it.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
A landmark ruling from the British Supreme Court setting out
how women are defined in law.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms
women and sex in the Equality Act twenty to ten
refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
In other words, sex is assigned at birth and trans women,
including those who've undergone gender reassignment, are not legally considered women.
Activist Jane Fay, director of Transactual UK, is devastated.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
Because effectively what this decision to us is exclude trans
people from society.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
But outside the court cheers from supporters of the decision,
including from one of the activists who led the campaign.
Speaker 5 (02:08):
This is not about prejudice or biga try as some
people would say. It's just about saying that there are
differences and biology is one of those differences.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
And it's ruling. The UK Supreme Court stress that this
legal definition does not strip trans rights, as they would
still be protected by anti discrimination laws, but the decision
could affect policy decisions related to participation in sports, the military,
and female only spaces.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
So this ruling is actually fairly nuanced and it does
not in fact remove anti discrimination protections for trans people,
but it is of course, leading to kind of a
meltdown and a lot of alarmism from transgender commentators from
TikTok to YouTube to cable news, and unsurprisingly, Samantha Lox
has fallen into that category. She's a very prominent transgender
(03:00):
woman YouTuber and her video about this was unfortunately very
misinformed and at times very nasty, in particular towards JK
Rowling in some truly hypocritical ways, and we're going to
walk through them. Here's the first clip from Samantha's video.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Let's just really think about this. Right for Women Scotland,
this feminist group fighting for equal rights for women RIGHT,
campaigned to get protections taken away from transwomen. Right. The
Equality Act is a non discrimination act. They tried to
get us removed. They did get us removed, but that
was their goal, to get us out of a non
discrimination act. If that doesn't tell you the type of
people they are, I don't know what will.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
So first things first, this is just factually incorrect. Trans
people did not get removed from the Equality Act. They
didn't get removed from anti discrimination protections in the UK.
They are still covered and still protected under the gender
Identity Provision of that Act, they are just distinguished from
biological women as the definition of women, and so allowing
(04:01):
for potentially segregated sex segregated spaces, whether it's sports or
women's shelters or prisons in the law, drawing an important
distinction in the sex and gender category, but not removing
protections for trans people from the Equality Act. That is
totally incorrect, misinformation and for some reason, the fact that
trans people are still protected was entirely left out of
(04:24):
Samantha's more than twenty minute video. And I have an
issue with that. You might disagree with this ruling personally,
I think it's common sense. But if even if you
disagree with it, don't lie, don't mislead your audience like this.
And I'm sorry, but I just have to roll my
eyes at this idea that how they disagree with an
aspect of discrimination law, how that tells you everything you
need to know about them. They must be evil. Actually, no,
(04:45):
it's okay to disagree with a particular element of a
complicated civil law and it doesn't make you an evil
meaning it's actually not evil or mean that some UK
feminists wanted sex segregated prisons and women's shelters for battered
women and the like, and you suggesting otherwise reveals a
real lack of intellectual humility. People can disagree with you
(05:07):
for reasons other than their evil meanings. Now the clips
from Samantha's video actually get crazier and much more so
incredibly toxic, in particular when she talks about JK. Rowling.
We're going to get into all of that after this.
I don't want to end up like these people.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
But I ate today as.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
A fatty good morning buddies, a pancakes, Thank.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
You so much.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
That's why I use Lumen, an amazing tool that helps
me feel better in my body and maintain a healthy weight.
Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a
device that measures your metabolism through your breath and on
the app, it lets you know if you're burning fat
or carbs. It gives you tailor guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep,
and even stress management. You can also breathe into it
before and after workouts and meals, so you know exactly
(05:52):
what's going on with your body in real time, and
Luman will give you tips to stay on top of
your health game. It can also track your cycle as
well as the onset of menopause, and adjust your recommendations
to help keep your metabolism healthy during hormonal changes so
you can keep up your energy and stave off cravings.
So if you want to take the next step in
your health journey, go to lumen dot me slash brad
(06:14):
to get fifteen percent off your lumen That is l
Umn dot m e slash brad for fifteen percent off
your purchase. Thank you Luhman for sponsoring today's episode, and
now back to the show. So this next part of
Samantha's video made me do a double take when I
listened to it. Take a listen.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
The single sex spaces that will be affected because of
this ruling include women's bathrooms, changing boards, hostels, sports clubs,
and even more insidious hospital wards, prisons, and domestic violence shelters.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
I'm sorry, wtf did Samantha just suggest that it is insidious,
meaning like sinister, for feminists to want sex segregated prisons
and abuse shelters. I'm sorry. What so it's evil now
and bad for them to even want to keep people
(07:09):
who are biologically male out of those spaces. That is
delulu beyond belief. I can't really speak to how the
UK prison system operates, obviously, but here in America, in
some parts of America, in California, for example, the Democrats
have passed laws that literally allow any biologically male person
who claims to be transgender or non binary and goes
(07:29):
through a few steps to certify that, even a registered
sex offender or somebody who's being in prison for a
sex crime against women, can be placed into women's prisons.
And many cases like that have occurred. It is not
sinister to oppose that, to think that I actually agree,
I think trans prisoners maybe need a separate war. They
shouldn't be put in men's prisons because they will be
(07:49):
abused and harmed. But to not want to open that
door to biological males being put in women's prisons is
not insidious. It is common sensical and a base matter
of safety and protection of women. But apparently we're bullies
if we believe this. Take a listen to this next clip.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
There is so, so so much evidence that shows that
trans people are actually disproportionately the target of domestic violence
and domestic assaults, so we need these resources as well.
But the argument against it is that cis women or
natal born women and whatever you want to call them
have a right to not have a man in their
shelter or in their space and genuinely fun this is
(08:32):
simply bullying to bully.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Did she just start to cuss out women in women's
shelters who don't want biological males in the shelter with
them and then have to censor herself. I think that's
what happened here, And yaikes, it's just not bullying for
people to not want trans women again who are biologically male,
to be in women's shelters, because even if like genuine
(08:56):
trans women who've been through the whole process and who
very much pass Samantha, even if many wouldn't necessarily have
an issue with them, there's no real way to allow
them into women's shelters, which even then some women might
feel uncomfortable with. But I think isn't the real issue
without opening the floodgates to people with beards and muscles
coming in and claiming their women or non binary and yes,
making abused women uncomfortable. That is not reasonable, it's not fair,
(09:20):
it's not something you should be pushing for, and it's
certainly not bullying to oppose it. I absolutely understand that
trans people are often victimized in many of these same situations,
and I think that's horrible. But there are shelters that
are open to both genders, to men, women and trans
people that they can go to. Maybe we need more
of those shelters, Maybe we need LGBT specific shelters. I'm
(09:43):
open to all of that. But the answer is not
to tell biological women who have been abused to suck
it up in cope and let biological males into their
safe spaces. That's demented. But I think a lot of
this just stems from some pretty fun unda mental disagreements.
As you can see in this clip.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Trans women are not men. We are not threats to
cys gender women. Firstly, for rechoocing us down to our
body parts is not very feminist of you, feminist group.
But secondly, trans women should not have to be refused
shelter and die in the streets because you're uncomfortable with
the fact that I'm trans. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Does
(10:24):
that make any fucking sense? Life is uncomfortable if anybody
knows that it's the trans community. Okay, if you are
not in danger, get over it.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
So there's a lot there quite something to tell women.
Battered women in this case, if you're not in danger,
get over it now, They actually, with their trauma and
their PTSD, have legitimate concerns that go beyond just emotional snowflakery.
Because I agree with the sentiment if you're not in danger,
get over it apply to most situations, but battered women
(10:55):
seeking refuge in a female only space not one. I
would personally invoke that sense a minute. Personally, that's just me,
and I sure hope Samantha has that same energy for
people who are filming themselves crying in their car because
they got misgendered and people won't incorrectly refer to them
as non binary and they them. But something tells me
Samantha is probably a lot more sympathetic in those kinds
(11:16):
of cases. I could be wrong now. The beginning of
this clip, trans women are not men really defines on
what your definition of man is. Technically, if you're defining
man as an adult human male, then trans women are men.
That is just a fact. Because it is an indisputable
fact that trans women are biological males. I'm happy to
let them live life in many ways as women. If
(11:39):
that's what will make them happiest. I'm happy to refer
to them with preferred pronouns and names within reason. I'm
not calling anybody's these are too bad. But sex is
defined by the structure of your reproductive system, and trans
women in almost all cases have reproductive systems oriented towards
the production of sperm aka they are biologically male. Change
(12:00):
their outward appearance. They can live life however they want,
call themselves whatever they want. All of that's cool, But
the facts are still the facts. And it's not reductive
or anti feminists to define sex by body parts. It's
just factual. So to Samantha's other point, I do agree
that many trans people are not threats to women or
anybody and are just otherwise normal people who want to
(12:21):
contribute to society, and I totally believe that. I think
it's wrong to demonize or stigmatize any group based in
the actions of some individuals. But you're also like denying
reality if you're saying, well, no, trans people are a
threat to women. Ever, that's absolutely not the case, and
in particular, the real threat, in my view, has been
people who aren't actually trans in the traditional sense, but
(12:41):
exploit the ambiguity and the gray area of these trans
accepting policies to then terrorize and harm women. And we've
seen example after example of that from the troll in Canada,
Jessica Unive, who tried to use the legal system to
force female waxers to wax her balls. Yes, that's a
real story, that's a real sentence, I was forced to say.
(13:04):
I remember at the time, I was working at a magazine,
in a digital magazine, and I wrote an article just
in quotes. The title was wax my balls, bigot. But
obviously there are people like this. There are people like
the trans women who I think are actually fetishists who
will go to nude female only spas and walk around
with their dingdong out. Obviously those people are trying to
(13:27):
antagonize women, are exploiting this ambiguity to harm people in
their own bizarre kind of satisfaction or what have you.
And of course that's not all trans people, or necessarily
even most. But the point is that it's impossible or
very difficult to draw lines in a way that opens
the door to trans people without also opening the door
to many of these people. And of course I agree
(13:49):
that trans people should not be categorically banned from shelters
or refused shelter and sent to die on the street.
But I really don't know what Samantha is talking about here,
because what people are saying is that trans women in
this case should go to shelters that accept people of
both genders which do exist, not that they should be
banned from shelters entirely. And like me, for example, as
(14:10):
a SIS man, I'm not allowed to go to women's shelters.
That doesn't mean I'm left to die in the streets
if I were to be victimized, which thankfully I haven't been.
So that bit of Samantha's brant here just comes off
as alarmists and hysterical, and honestly, a lot of Samantha's
commentary comes off as completely out of touch with like
(14:30):
what the actual other side actually believes, like this next class.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
What this means is that places are now able to
create single sex spaces and exclude trans women from those spaces.
We've heard this complaint a million times right in all
different shapes, all different sizes, in all different appearances. You
could say trans women shouldn't be allowed into women's bathrooms
because they're gonna they're gonna hurt women. No evidence of that.
Trans identified men shouldn't be allowed into women's sports because
(14:57):
they'll dominate women's sports and no women will win. No
evidence of that. And I even discussed in my channel
a situation where a group was complaining that they were
not allowed to exclude transomen from their dating game, their
dating show, or whatever the fuck they were doing, claiming
that cis gender lesbians are not interested in transwomen and
they should be able to, you know, not allow trans
(15:17):
women to be there. And for this one, I actually
have a lot of evidence that proves that the opposite
is true. Lesbians left me. What all of these have
in common is a lack of evidence of potential harm
and an underlying motivation of personal disapproval of trans people.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
So there's a lot to unpack here. And I actually
do acknowledge that in some cases people are motivated by
disgusted or disapproval towards trans people, and I think that's
harmful and toxic and misguided. But a lot of people aren't.
A lot of people hold these positions in good faith.
And I don't disapprove of you as a trans woman. Living, however,
will make you happiest, I truly don't, but I still
(15:55):
think that it's unreasonable and unfair to allow biological males
into women's sports and these other things that you've mentioned now.
I actually don't support bathroom bills like strictly banning trans
women from women's bathrooms. I think they're tough to enforce
and often a solution in search of a problem. I've
talked about this extensively in other episodes on my channel
if you're interested. But as for sports, for example, Samantha's
(16:18):
just like beating the crap out of a straw man,
like she really doesn't seem to understand what serious, good
faith critics of trans women and women's sports actually believe.
Maybe you could find some people out there who have
said this, but the argument has never really been not
from serious people. Trans women are going to dominate all
of women's sports and win all the awards and medals,
and women will never biological women will never win again.
(16:41):
Maybe you could find somebody who says that somewhere, but
that's not the main criticism. It's obviously true that trans
people are a small percentage of the population, and then
only tiny percentage of them are even competitive athletes. So yeah,
just in raw number terms, it's not going to take
over all of women's sports. I don't argue that either
do most serious critics. The real argument is that when
(17:02):
and where it does happen, it is objectively unfair and,
depending on the sport, unsafe. And that argument is absolutely
valid and backed up by extensive research and evidence. You
can't dismiss valid fairness and safety concerns by just saying, well,
they don't happen that frequently, it's still important and meaningful
(17:23):
and kind of a question of fundamental values. And also
then it's still important to the thousands of women who
have been directly affected, who have been forced to compete
against a male competitor, or who have been forced to
share a changing room with a male competitor in a
way that made them uncomfortable, or what have you. And
it comes off as insensitive and dismissive to say, well,
it's just you know, a small percentage of the population. Sure,
(17:45):
but it's objectively unfair and unreasonable. So denying it by
pointing to the fact that it's a relatively rare occurrence
doesn't actually win you an argument. It just perhaps, I mean,
goes to the fact that yes, this is not an
everyday occurrence. That and I'm sorry, but lesbians should be
allowed to exclude biological males from lesbian dating events. It's
(18:08):
for lesbians, which are females who are interested in other females.
There are you can have your own, buy pan, queer
whatever dating event for people who are interested in dating men, women,
trans people, two spirit they, thems, whatever, knock yourself out,
please power to you, but don't try to stop lesbians
(18:28):
from being lesbians and force biological males into their romantic spaces.
That's actually homophobic. You realize that, right, But apparently, according
to Samantha, people like me who raise these concerns are
responsible for violence. Take a listen to this next clip.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
When ideas like this are proposed by people like for
Women Scotland and approved by the highest court of the land,
people with similar hateful ideas feel emboldened to act out.
I've personally seen an increase of hate on social media.
I've just play not bullying, just bullying trans people just
for the fun of it. A transom was just brutally
attacked and thrown in a river to drown while everybody
(19:08):
around her watched. This is the exact result of this
hatred pervading society.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Now, I actually agree there is a huge uptick in
bullying and nastiness towards trans people, and I don't support that.
You see it on X all the time. It is,
I think, part of a backlash we're living through to
which I trace the roots to the people who pushed
irreversible and unproven medical treatments on gender confused miners and
who stumped for absurd things like biologically male sex offenders
(19:36):
and women's prisons. So people like Samantha Lux, that's why
this backlash is occurring. It's still not right, it's still
not right to be hateful towards people. You've seen this
with like Matt Walsh talking about Dylan Mulvany as like
a subhuman alien piece of filth, basically like it's really
nasty stuff. And I agree it's not okay to act
(19:56):
like that. But you can't blame people for violence unless
they actually advocate for violence, Like it is really bizarre
to cite some random crime that happened in Colombia and
blame UK feminists for it. We have no evidence of
any connection between these things, and unless these feminists have
advocated for violence They can't be blamed for violence just
(20:19):
because they engaged in strong rhetoric or toxic words at times.
I mean, Samantha, you insult and deride turfs, these feminists
that you disagree with all the time. But unless you've
advocated for violence, which I don't believe you have, you
are still not responsible if people go out there and
commit acts of violence against turfs. But under your logic,
(20:39):
you absolutely would be. Just please stop trying to shut
down debate by blaming people for violence they never endorsed
or encouraged. Ironically, by doing so, you're taking blame and
responsibility off of the shoulders of the people who actually
did the violence, which isn't good if you ask me.
And now we're going to get to the first part
(21:00):
of Samantha's video, which is when she talks about JK. Rowling,
who played a role in supporting the group that brought
this UK Supreme Court case. Take a listen to this.
It's really quite something.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
This reeks of Rowling. It reeks of her obsession, Okay,
it reeks of her refusal to let the shit go.
And she is the exact type of person to spend
one hundred thousand dollars or almost on dollars, don't know
the exact number, aroun one hundred thousand dollars to make
a point against chance people well, and then brag about
it on Twitter. I love when a plan comes together.
(21:32):
I love an old tags choke. Sorry, the irony is
is that she positions herself as this greet feminist fighting
for women and children, but looks like she's cause playing
Enter Tait, one of the world's most hated misogynists. But
it fits, honestly, it fits right. Rolling is not a feminist,
So there's a lot here. First and foremost, it's kind
(21:53):
of hilarious to say other people are bullying because they
disagree with you, but also telling feminists who apoe your
agenda that you like to see them choke like JK.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Rolling and by your own logic, if there were violence
or threats against JK. Rowling, which there absolutely have been,
aren't you responsible with your rhetoric here? Now? I don't
even necessarily think so, but you should practice what you
preach a little bit and maybe not speak about people
in that way if you're going to so loosely connect
rhetoric with violence. And I'm sorry but saying you like
(22:24):
to see old hags choke. Isn't helping your case that
trans women are never, ever, ever a threat to biological women.
And look, I agreed with JK. Rowling's older, more nuanced
and moderate takes that she first had when she came out,
and I do think she's become more extreme and her
rhetoric has become more acerbic, for sure, But that's partly
(22:47):
because when she spoke out in a moderate or nuanced way,
she was so viciously attacked, and that does make people
defensive and pushes them more and more into their camp
and their side. And yes, they will get more extreme
still though, comparing her to Andrew Tait on this basis
is offensive and absurd. Andrew Tait is an alleged abuser
of women, with a lot of evidence backing up those accusations.
(23:10):
She's the survivor of abuse. That's pretty wild. Just because
she took a photo, a celebratory photo smoking a cigar.
Lots of people do that, so that's a real stretch
Samantha in a pretty darn and sensitive one at that.
At the end of the day, I unfortunately think that
this kind of rhetoric and commentary from prominent trans people
like Samantha lux is why we're here, is why there's
(23:31):
been so much backlash, because it is so extreme and
so toxic and so devoid of logic and nuance. But Samantha,
if you do see this video, would love to have
a civil conversation with you. Please do feel free to
reach out you guys. Let me know what you think
of this video and this controversy in the comments below,
and do hit that leg button and subscribe if you
haven't yet. By the way, guys, please keep sending me
(23:53):
voice messages. Love going through them. I'm going to do
another episode responding to you. Just leave your first name
doesn't even have to be a real first name. Tell
me something about what's going on in your life or
a crazy experience you had in the past where you
want my thoughts or to ask for advice. The link
will be in the description. And also remember you can
get your de lulu as showing merch and more at
the link in the description as well. Up next, we're
(24:14):
going to do a quick update on the Amazon story
we talked about yesterday, where Amazon, it was reported, was
planning on adding on these search charges on checkouts that
showed how much the tariffs were adding to the cost
of goods. Well. The Trump administration, as we covered yesterday,
was extremely pissed off at them for this and publicly
criticized them. But I actually thought it was a good
(24:35):
idea and I still do. Turns out they're actually not
doing it. Here's reporting from mediaite. Jeff Bezos was very nice.
Trump declares victory in battle with Amazon over tariff price hikes. Subsequently,
Amazon told The Washington Post Jeff Stein that the team
that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Hall store has
considered listing import charges on certain products. This was never
a consideration for the main Amazon site, and nothing has
(24:57):
been implemented on any Amazon prop CNN then reported that
a pissed Trump had called Amazon founder Jeff Bezos after
the punch bowl report broke. Trump spoke about the call
briefly after a reporter asked him a mostly an audible
question about it on the White House lawn Tuesday afternoon. Great,
Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved
the problem very quickly, and he did the right thing.
He's a good guy, answered Trump. So I actually think
(25:19):
this is lame. I think Amazon should have gone forward
with this. People should know what these new taxes will
cost them, even if you think it's worth it. People
should be aware of the downsides. But there's two ways
this could have played out. Maybe it was never actually
a thing and this was all just a miscommunication of sorts.
Or it was a thing they were planning on doing.
Trump called and yelled at them, and Jeff Bezos bowed
(25:41):
and caved and is now claiming they were never really
planning on doing it. I can't answer that. I don't
know which one it was. Either way, kind of a
disappointing end to this saga for me because I do
support price transparency. I do think people should know how
much government adds to the cost of the things we
buy and use and need. So I'm not thrilled about
how this worked out, but maybe you guys are let
(26:03):
me know in the comments. And now we're going to
talk briefly about the Democratic Party because they're not getting better.
They are still very much in shambles and kind of
grappling with a lot of the same insane ideas that
have driven the party off a cliff. And a couple
examples these are just anecdotal examples, but they kind of
hilariously encapsulate that that I want to go over. So
(26:24):
David Hogg, the new one of the new DNC vice chairs.
We talked about him on the show when he was elected.
Is this guy with a super woke past, tons of
cringe old tweets. He emerged tragically as a figure after
the Parkland shooting in Florida. It's a big gun control advocate. Well,
he is making moves as DNC vice chair in a
kind of controversial way, but now might be removed from
(26:45):
the position because somebody is challenging his election on the
grounds that it allegedly violated gender inclusivity mandates. Semaphore reports,
Native American woman gets a chance to topple Hog at
dnc Z, a candidate who failed to win a DNC
committee leadership role, is challenging her defeat, the first threat
(27:06):
to DNC Vice Chair David Hogg since he vowed to
keep backing some primary challenges to incumbents. The DNC's Credentials
Committee will meet virtually on May twelve to consider the
challenge from Caitlin Free, a Native American attorney and party
activist who lost a vice chair spot to Hog at
the party's February first meeting and her complaint shared with
Semaphore by a Democratic source. Free argued that she had
(27:27):
lost a fatally flawed election that violated the DNC charter
and discriminated against three women of color candidates and asks
for two new vice chair elections in February. After several
rounds of voting, the race came down to five candidates, Kenyata, Hog, Free,
and to other women. Kenyada and Hog claimed the open
spots by aggregating votes across ballots and failing to distinguish
(27:49):
between gender categories in a meaningful way. The DNC's process
violated its own charter and by laws, undermining both fairness
and gender diversity, argued Free, a citizen of the Chalk Nation.
So the argument here is literally that it was unfair
and against gender equity that they had men and women
both running for this position and selected two men in
(28:12):
an open and non discriminatory way. The argument is that
DNC rules say they have to force a certain amount
of gender diversity or something that gets complicated in arcane,
and that selecting two men is literally not allowed. Seriously,
that's what they're arguing here, which I don't know if
that's a correct interpretation of the rules. But I do
know they do have We went over this on the show.
(28:33):
In the Democratic Party by laws, they have representation mandates
quotas an identity based exclusion category. You can only have
so many of this type of person in this position.
And the fact that the Democratic Party even still has
those rules, to me, shows they have not fully reckoned
with or overcome the insane identity ideology that took that
(28:54):
party just completely off the reservation. Another funny this is
just a funny anecdotal example. I won't read too much
into it, but there's this centrist Democratic economist and writer
named Noah Smith, and he shared this funny story on
x He wrote, I can shout from the rooftops that
Dems should moderate on immigration. I can denounce the Palestine
movement all day long. But when someone said Dems need
(29:16):
to moderate on trans issues, and I quote tweeted them
with him, maybe a blue sky mob came after me
and I got kicked out of a local rabbit themed
group chat here in San Francisco, the first time I
ever suffered offline consequences for a social media post in
my life. So he got kicked out of a group
chat about rabbits in San Francisco, where he lives, because
(29:39):
he had the political opinion that Dems should maybe moderate
on trans issues. Wow. If that is not a microcosm
of the absurdity of the most extreme progressive thinking in
these hot spots of blue, dark blue life, then I
don't know what is. What do you guys think about
all of this? Please do let me know in the comments.
Do hit that leg button and subscuct bribe if you
(30:00):
haven't yet. Thanks again to Luhman for sponsoring today's episode.
Remember to send a voice note or to check out
the march and we'll talk again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.