Ep. 1493 - A Father’s Tragic Fight to Save His Son from Gender Ideology
01:02:50 Share

Today on The Matt Walsh Show, a father has been struggling for years to protect his son from gender mutilation and sterilization. The case seems to have finally reached a predictable but tragic conclusion. We'll discuss. Also, a medical expert testifies in the Daniel Penny case that the headlock is not what killed Jordan Neely. The woke head of Jaguar comes out to defend that ridiculous ad that everyone's mocking. And another video of a so-called Karen goes viral. I'm going to defend the Karen today, not just this one, but Karens all across the country. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.

Gavin Hurd, our best deal of the year is happening now. Get 50% off new annual memberships, no code needed. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join now. Look, we're all feeling the impact of Biden's economy, grocery prices through the roof, utilities keep climbing, childcare costs absolutely crushing American families. Many of us have been forced to rely on credit cards just to make ends meet. Those interest rates are criminal. But

Here's some good news. The Fed has finally dropped interest rates and my friends at American Financing can help you take advantage of this opportunity. This is the perfect time to consolidate that high interest debt and actually reduce your monthly expenses. American Financing is helping homeowners just like you save an average of $800 per month. They're efficient too. Some closings are happening in as little as 10 days. Even better, you start today, you might be able to delay two mortgage payments

Listen, I wouldn't recommend them if I didn't trust them, and they won't charge you anything up front to find out how much you can save. Call American Financing today, 866-569-4711. That's 866-569-4711. Or if you're more digitally inclined, visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh NMLS 182334 NMLS Consumer Access. Do it now before the next economic crisis hits. NMLS 182334 NMLS ConsumerAccess.org.

Over the years at various points, I've talked about the very long running case involving Jeff Younger, his ex-wife, Ann Georgilis, and their twin sons. A custody battle that has unfolded for the better part of a decade concerning whether or not one of those twins, James, who's now 12 years old, should be allowed to quote unquote transition into a girl. And the boy's mother thinks that's a good idea, and she's been pushing for it for quite some time. The boy's father has been fighting to prevent it from happening.

Now, already based on these facts alone, this should have been the single shortest custody battle in the history of the American legal system. When one parent looks at a boy and says, that's really a girl, then case closed. That parent should not be allowed anywhere near her child or any other child for that matter. The parent who has a basic grasp of reality is clearly more fit and more capable than the parent who doesn't. Pretty simple.

But that's not how Jeff Younger's case has played out, unfortunately. Instead, in both Texas and California, there have been years of legal battles over custody. And last week, these legal battles came to a tragic but predictable conclusion with a California court awarding full custody to Ann. And she'll now be free to raise her boy as though he's a girl, including by chemically castrating him if she chooses to do so. So those are the basic outlines of the case, which are about as disturbing as you can imagine.

But as you look into the details, somehow it gets even worse. This is a legal battle that makes it very clear that Democrats and trans activists don't simply aspire to take children away from their parents. This dispute reveals that in our legal system, they can already do it. And they can do it pretty easily, as it turns out. Before I get to all those arguments, let's start at the beginning and just kind of review some of the basic facts here if you haven't followed the story.

over the years. Jeff Younger married Anne in 2010. Both were members of the Orthodox Church. And almost immediately, there was a problem. Younger explained what happened in a recent interview with Tim Pool. At the end of this clip, he mentions a video involving his son James. And we'll play that one for you too. Watch.

Starting about two years old, my ex-wife decided to transition my son to a girl. We were still married at the time, and I told her she couldn't do that. She's a pediatrician, and she forced me out of my house, filed for divorce, and then began to really in earnest try to transition my son. She began to present him to the world as a girl. She changed his name without my consent, with no legal basis to do that.

My son eventually at three years old, we're still heading towards divorce, tells me that mommy says I'm a girl. So I took the first iPhone video I'd ever taken. And if you go on YouTube, you can find it. Just search for mommy says I'm a girl. It went everywhere. You're a boy, right? No, I'm a girl. Who told you you're a girl? Mommy. When did she tell you you were a girl? I love girls. Oh, I see. So mommy told you you were a girl? Uh-huh.

Does mommy do anything else like with a girl with you? Like what? Like dresses. What does she do? She puts dresses on you? Oh, wow.

Okay, so infuriating, horrifying to this very young child. He says, well, I'm a girl because I love girls, meaning he thinks girls are, you know, he thinks girls are nice. He likes girls. And so in his mind, at the age of three, he can't distinguish between, oh, I think these are nice people. I like being around these people. I like my mom. I like being around her.

And he can't distinguish between that and I am that thing because he's three. And it seems that his mother exploited that three-year-old confusion to send him down this path. So this is a process that, according to Jeff, began when his son was just two years old. And he says it involved a lot of heavy-handed pressure from his wife as well as some very deranged interpretations of his son's behavior. For example, according to Younger, his wife would tell his son that if he wanted to stay out of trouble, he wouldn't act like a boy.

Not exactly subtle. Also at some point James apparently picked out a silver purse at Target that had a multicolored unicorn on it. The fact that a little kid thought a shiny thing with a flying horse on it is cool apparently means he's a girl. He also selected a girl's toy in a McDonald's Happy Meal. That was it. That was the evidence that apparently led Younger's wife to conclude that their son was really a girl.

Now, by the time his son was three years old, Jeff could tell that this would be a case of he said, she said. So to protect himself and his son, he eventually shot that video on his iPhone that we just saw. And as you saw, it shows his son saying very clearly that his alleged gender identity, quote unquote, was influenced in some way by his mother. The child says his mother told him that he's a girl. Now, Younger has also said that his wife tried to enroll their son in a gender clinic in Dallas at the age of five.

He stated last year that, quote, pediatrician records show that she intended to chemically castrate him at age eight or nine. Eventually, litigation began in Dallas as James's school began facilitating his supposed transition. And his mother demanded that his father affirm his so-called gender identity. And in 2019, the court in Dallas made a number of findings that are very alarming, to say the least. For example, the court determined that, quote,

The mother changed James's name to Luna on her own volition. The court finds that the mother asked the child if he still wanted to be called James. The court finds that James did not initiate the conversation about having his name changed. Of course, even if James had initiated a conversation about changing his name, it wouldn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that you actually do it. Children will initiate a lot of conversations that don't demand the immediate affirmation of their parents or any kind of affirmation whatsoever. My five-year-old recently initiated a conversation about having candy for breakfast.

Conversation didn't last very long. The answer was no, and that was that. Yet in this case, the court found that James didn't even bring up the idea of changing his name. Obviously, that's an idea that was presented to him, that was forced on him. There's a lot of very disturbing information in this court ruling too. Keep in mind, as you hear this, we're talking about a boy who's seven years old at the time of this ruling. So reading on, quote, the court finds Dr. Albertan, a psychologist and expert witness,

Stating when the boys were brought by their mother for a joint interview, James presented wearing high heels and a dress, and he was a little overdressed. Your typical girl might be wearing leggings and sandals, but he seemed to be pretty dramatic in his dress. The doctor experienced the same thing when he went to the house. So this is a, I keep in mind, an actual seven-year-old girl wearing high heels and

Unless it's like her mom's high heels that she's wearing as a joke around the house, but actually like wearing them as an outfit. Even that is ridiculous. And no seven-year-old girl dresses that way. But this is how the boy is dressed.

And this is a phenomenon that we see all the time with adults who identify as transgender. This is with the adults. The men, they're preoccupied with appearing as women. And so they try to match every conceivable feminine stereotype that comes to mind all at the same time.

These are the same people who supposedly reject the idea of a gender binary, but then you'll find them with overdone eyelashes, tons of makeup, tacky dresses, a framed poster of Legally Blonde on their wall or whatever, all because they're desperate to conform to their cartoonish perception of womanhood. And in this case, that was happening to James, except clearly James wasn't responsible for it. It wasn't something that he was doing, but rather something that was being done to him.

And there's evidence in the court ruling that James's mother wasn't just interested in making his child, quote, look like a girl. There are indications that his mother also wanted to chemically castrate him as well, or at least that she was open to the idea. Quote, the court finds that when the mother was asked with regards to puberty blockers, it is a very big deal. It's a very significant decision for parents and families to make. Question, shouldn't sterilization only be done if it's to save a patient's life? Answer, no.

In other words, it's fine to sterilize children in order to affirm whatever they say their gender is. The result of this Dallas case from 2019 was that joint custody was awarded. Both parents had to agree before any medical decisions were made involving their son, including any alleged gender transition. And even that ruling was far too favorable to the mother because she should have lost custody of her children completely. Instead, it was joint custody.

In her ruling, the judge faulted the mother for pushing too hard to complete this transition. And she faulted Jeff for going public with the dispute and raising money off of it, even though that seems like a pretty reasonable thing for a father to do under these circumstances. Later on, there was apparently an incident in school in which James told the school counselor that he didn't want to be a girl anymore. And somehow Jeff was blamed for this, and he lost custody of his son. Watch.

What precipitated me losing my sons, all contact with my sons, last year in July, was my son just straight up told his counselor that he doesn't want to be a girl. He's getting embarrassed wearing dresses at school. She didn't even acknowledge that he said it. So he had an Apple Watch and he recorded himself. He said, I'm going to record telling you this. Your son did? Yes. And she totally freaked out, threw him out of the office and initiated a CPS investigation against me.

and told the court that I had forced him to say that. So now the son is saying, I don't want to do this anymore. I don't want to do this. And instead, the court responds by removing from the situation the one parent who actually cares about him and is listening to him. I mean, it's just depraved at every conceivable level. So he lost all contact with his son because of this incident. And that's what the court's determined would be the just outcome.

But even after this ruling, Texas courts still didn't allow Younger's ex-wife to chemically castrate their child. And she agreed in her interactions with the court that she wouldn't do it. That was the red line. And it was held up throughout these proceedings. But then in September of 2022, Younger's wife fled with her two sons to California, which had just passed a so-called sanctuary state law. It allows parents to take children to California for the purpose of, quote, transitioning them without fearing legal repercussions.

In response, Younger immediately went to the Texas Supreme Court requesting an order for the children to be returned to Texas. But the Texas Supreme Court refused, saying that it was mere speculation that Younger's wife would attempt to castrate his children. After all, she had agreed not to do so. Now, of course, the ruling was ridiculous. There was no speculation here. Children, California was inviting parents to come there to castrate their kids. And Younger's ex-wife was accepting the invitation. So then the inevitable happened. The Superior Court judge in California

awarded Younger's wife full custody of their children, including the authority to pursue so-called gender-affirming treatments such as chemical castration.

As Jeff wrote in a statement, quote, I lost all parental rights to my sons. Goodbye, boys. Perhaps we'll meet when you're adults. California judge Juhasz gave my ex-wife authority to castrate my son, James. All contact with my boys must be supervised. I won't do that. Let my story be a cautionary one for young men. Fathers have no rights to their children. Do not enter the family law system.

Now, the fight isn't actually over. Jeff will keep up the battle in the courts. He's also calling on the incoming Trump administration to do whatever it can to halt these procedures in hospitals nationwide, including in the state of California. Trump has already promised to issue an executive order, quote, instructing every federal agency to cease the promotion of sex or gender transition at any age.

This is the kind of order that very quickly can lead to the end of so called trans medicine. But Congress also needs to take up a federal ban on gender mutilation of children, just flat out. It should be a top priority of the next administration, the next Congress. But for now, this is where things stand illegally. Now in his statement, Younger, of course, as we heard, didn't just discuss the legal and personal ramifications of this case, as serious as they are. He also made a broader point, calling his case a cautionary tale for young men,

and told him to quote, not enter the family law system. In a previous post, Jeff has elaborated on what he means by that. For example, a couple of weeks ago, he wrote, quote, men now refuse to marry. Most are forgoing children. A huge movement is forming of single men using surrogates to have children. It's a rational response to the terrible laws governing marriage and divorce in family courts. My

My sons have experienced the loss of their father, seen the courts try to destroy their father, observe their father's effective enslavement to the state, watch endless humiliation rituals against their father, and watch their mother orchestrate it all. Tens of millions of young men have observed the same thing in their families. They're not going to marry into a totalitarian system like family court. No amount of theology or argument will overcome their own experience and observations.

No one who's familiar with the details of Jeff Younger's case can deny that he's correct about the family court system. This has been a completely irrational, entirely unjust series of proceedings to the point of cruelty and barbarism. And indeed, what happened here is very much a cautionary tale. But I do think it's important to say one thing, which is that, in my view, the moral of the story here isn't that men should avoid marriage.

Because, you know, my take on this, to give up on marriage is to give up on the family, and to give up on the family is to give up on human civilization itself. I mean, that's what you're doing. We are in a fight for civilization. We can't win the fight with an unconditional surrender, which is what it would mean for us to abandon the family. I mean, you're just giving up on civilization. Can't do that. You can't do that under any circumstance. It's the one thing you cannot do. So the moral of the story, then, is that

I think that men must be absolutely sure that they are marrying women whose fundamental values are totally aligned with their own, which may seem like the most obvious thing in the world, but it's apparently not in many cases. And there are a lot of other things that people tend to prioritize when they're picking a potential spouse. But this is the number one thing. The number one thing is this. There are other things that matter, but this is the number one, absolutely number one thing.

that your fundamental values align. And if they don't, no matter what else, doesn't matter if you like their personality, if you think it's a beautiful woman, if they're fun and great and everything, doesn't matter. None of that matters if your fundamental values don't align. If they do, you can proceed with a significant amount of confidence. So speaking personally,

There is essentially a 0% chance that my wife would ever try to take any of my sons and do this to them. She would rather be dead. She feels just as strongly as I do about the subject. If you're a single man and the woman you're dating is not that solidly opposed to this kind of medical abuse, like so opposed to it that she would rather be dead than see it happen to her son, then you should run in the other direction as fast as you can.

And to be clear, that's not a criticism of Jeff Younger in any way. There are very few fathers on this planet who can begin to comprehend what he's experiencing right now and what he's experienced for the past decade, which is why I've followed his case, talked about it so much over the years. We have no real insight into his relationship with his ex-wife and what happened before all this and beyond what we hear from court documents and what he says in interviews. But

So this is not about him. This is a general point. And I think it's a critical point that this kind of outcome is not inevitable. Now, yes, the goal now is to change the laws and the legal precedents so that nothing like this ever happens again. And there's a very real possibility the Trump administration will accomplish that. They can accomplish it. It's something they can do. So they must.

At the same time, young men need to think about what they can do to avoid a situation where they have to rely on the government to protect their parental rights in the first place. Because as Jeff Younger points out and has experienced, you can't depend on that. Now, yes, there are cases, there are cases where you might marry someone who then proceeds to turn into a totally different person in a way that was utterly unforeseeable. That can happen. I can't say that it can't happen. Anything can happen.

Now, whether that's what happened in Jeff Younger's case, I truly don't know. But in the vast, vast majority of cases, that is not how it works, okay? Because that's just not how human beings work. That's not human nature. In almost every case where your wife turns out to be a radically self-centered, far-left, feminist whack job, it's because she was always all of those things, or at least on her way to becoming those things. In most cases, people do not mutate into monsters out of nowhere, okay?

They were always monsters. All you have to do is pay attention and be willing to notice the warning signs. So going back to my own case, is it technically possible that my wife could go insane and wake up tomorrow or in 10 years as an avid proponent of all of these terrible things? I mean, I can't say it's impossible in the sense that impossible is like adding two plus two and making 10. That's impossible. You just can't do it. A trillion tries, you couldn't do it.

So this is not impossible in that sense. It is logically possible, it is technically possible that my wife could go insane in that way to the exact same degree that it's technically possible that I could go insane in that way. Maybe I suffer some sort of traumatic brain injury that has that effect. Maybe I fall into a vat of acid and that's how I become a supervillain who's in favor of child gender transitions and all the rest of it. I mean, it's possible technically, technically, right?

But I'm really not worried about that happening in my case or hers. A lot of things are technically possible, but you don't change your behavior because of it. It's technically possible that my house could collapse on us tonight and kill everybody inside it while we're sleeping. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna force my family to sleep outside. Because in almost every case where a house suddenly collapses, it's because there were structural problems that you could easily notice or should have noticed before disaster struck.

And in almost every case where your wife turns out to be a horrible beast, or if you're a young woman, your husband, there were plenty of warning signs. So you got to pay attention to those and marry someone who aligns with you on the most fundamental issues. And I can start by asking them, like on the first date, about these things. And you don't just ask, but you're also spending time with this person, hopefully, before you get engaged and before you get married. And so you start to see, well, this is what they're saying. This is how they're living. I mean, it's...

Most of the time, it's not hard to figure this out about someone. A person whose foundational values are in full agreement with your own. That's what you're looking for. And this will give you a very, very, very good chance of avoiding great heartache down the road. Now, none of that is to blame Jeff Younger for anything, certainly. He's been in a valiant battle to save his son. I have immense respect and sympathy for him. My point is just to give a word of advice to any young, single people who hear these kinds of stories and feel understandably terrified by them.

As Jeff Younger would be the first to tell you, you have to put yourself in a situation where you won't have to rely on the court system or the government. Hopefully the laws will continue to change in the direction of sanity and protecting children from abuse. But in the meantime, you're on your own. Act accordingly. Now let's get to our five headlines.

The question I get a lot from my audience, especially after they've seen one of my movies, is how can I get in the conservative fight? Well, for starters, you need to be strategic about where your money is going. Most credit cards are funneling millions to left-wing causes and candidates hoping that you don't notice. But now you can align your spending with your values. Coin is America's first conservative credit card. That's C-O-I-G-N dot com.

A portion of every transaction is donated to conservative causes and charities at no cost to you. Coin empowers us to get woke out of our wallet, and it's a good-looking credit card too. Bright red with We The People on the front. Coin works everywhere. Visa's accepted. It comes with 100% U.S.-based customer service and consumer protections.

Thousands of patriots are earning cash back while fighting the liberal agenda. The demand for this card is so high that there is now a wait list. This is a movement. Be a part of it. Go to COIGN.com to join the wait list. Be sure to select Daily Wire in the How Did You Hear Us About Us section. Terms apply. Go to COIGN.com slash disclosures for full details.

Okay, Daily Wire has this. A forensic pathologist testified on Thursday that Jordan Neely's death was caused by the combined effects of synthetic marijuana that he was using, his schizophrenia and other factors.

Dr. Satish Chandru reviewed Neely's autopsy records and video evidence for Daniel Penney's defense team, according to New York Post, and determined that those records didn't show the signs typically associated with chokehold deaths. "In your opinion, did Mr. Penney choke Mr. Neely to death?" asked Steven Razor, one of Penney's defense attorneys. "No," Chandru replied. "The chokehold did not cause death." Chandru also testified that Neely's death was the result of the combined effects of sickle cell crisis, the schizophrenia, the struggle and restraint, and the synthetic marijuana.

He said that someone high on synthetic marijuana with schizophrenia can die while involved in a struggle even without a chokehold being used. Trendrieu went on to say that even if Neely hadn't had those other health factors, he still would not have died from Penny's chokehold. So this is probably the most significant development in the trial. The trial is now adjourned, by the way, until after Thanksgiving. And they're gonna come back and they'll have closing arguments and then the jury will deliberate.

And so Daniel Penny gets to spend Thanksgiving wondering whether he's going to go to jail for the next 10 years, you know, and it's just an awful situation. And it's why this trial makes me so angry. Like, I actually, I have to limit the amount of time I spend talking about it. I've talked about it a lot, but I have to limit it because it's,

It's so infuriating that I'm always tempted to say things that I shouldn't say publicly. So I have to exercise a lot of restraint. Each new development in this trial makes it even clearer that it already was, that the whole thing is a sham. And this trial never should have happened. And now we learned that Chokehold didn't even kill Neely. He died because he was a drugged up psycho, right? That's why he died. He was high, flipping out, threatening people on the train,

In the midst of a struggle with someone who had to restrain him because he was threatening to kill people, that's on him, that's on Neely. Nobody is responsible for that but Jordan Neely. In a sane society, you put the onus 100% on Jordan Neely in a situation like that. If you have to be restrained because of your behavior in public, whatever happens as a result is on you. If you walk into a confined area and you make everybody in that confined space fear for their lives,

because of the things that you are explicitly threatening them with, whatever happens as a result is on you. That's how it should be. I don't care if they pry the door open and throw you out on the tracks while the train's going 80 miles an hour. In that case, I would say, totally your fault. I will not cry one tear for you. And in that case, I would say every pastor involved with that is a hero. Let's give them all medals. Well done. So that's how it should be.

And the facts here are clear. The fact that Daniel Penny is innocent is clear. Like, it's not even close. They should deliberate for 20 seconds and come back with not guilty. That's what should happen. Should happen. Am I confident that will happen? No. But it should happen because his innocence is indisputable. And there's another thing that's also indisputable. And this is the point I keep coming back to. This is why this trial to me is so significant, is that it comes down to this for me.

And, you know, there have been other high profile trials of innocent men who were on trial for an act of self-defense or for or for doing their job as police officers. So, you know, we've seen other other examples of this kind of thing. As I've said a few times, to me, this is this is the most egregious of all those cases. And one of the reasons is this reason that it presents this this choice.

Or rather, it represents a choice that society can make. And in a society, you either prioritize Daniel Penny or Jordan Neely, right? It's Daniel Penny over Jordan Neely or Jordan Neely over Daniel Penny. And I don't just mean those men individually in this one case. I mean, in general, those types of men, okay? In society, you prioritize your Daniel Pennies or your Jordan Neelys. Every society has got their Daniel Pennies and you've got your Jordan Neelys. Which one?

When something like this happens, who gets the benefit of the doubt? Who do you put a special emphasis on protecting? You go out of your way for the sake of one or the other. You elevate and admire one or the other. You weep over one or the other, primarily. Are you gonna be a Daniel Penny society or a Jordan Neely society? Now, for most of human history, it wasn't a question.

There's nothing to think of. Of course, it's Daniel Penny. He's the guy, obviously. That's the guy that you protect. That's the guy you admire. That's the guy you put. That's the guy, if there's some sort of thing, a dispute between, you give him the benefit of the doubt. Not just that. I mean, these are the guys that you put them in positions of leadership. You make him a senator. You make him a president. You make him a general leading troops in a battle. These kinds of guys. That's what you do with those kinds of guys.

And if that kind of guy gets in a situation like this, there's just no question about it. You side with Daniel Penny. You wouldn't even think of trying to put him in jail. Hell no. For who? For the sake of some drug addled bum who's threatening to kill people on the train? You're gonna put that guy in jail for him? Hell no. That's the way it was. That's the way it's always been until now. And more recently, we've switched courses because now we're a Jordan Neely society.

He's the kind of guy that we admire and respect and protect and elevate and idolize. He's the guy who gets the benefit of the doubt. Somebody who contributes absolutely nothing. Somebody with no virtue. Somebody with no positive attributes. Someone who's never done anything positive in his life, ever. Someone who has not done anything to improve the lives of anyone around him ever at any point. And, um...

Someone who is nothing but a strain on society and not a strain on society in the way of like an impoverished widow or an orphan child. Someone innocent that you want to protect. No, he's a strain because he chooses to be. Because he's a totally antisocial criminal bum who goes out of his way to make everyone else's lives miserable. And this is the guy now who gets the benefit of the doubt. If this guy is locked in a struggle with somebody else, we assume that the other guy must be responsible, not this dude.

It's crazy. It's just, we talk about protecting civilization. Well, you can't have a civilization when the instinct is to protect and give the benefit of the doubt to the Jordan Neelys. Okay? Like the appropriate attitude to a Jordan Neely is to look at him like, all right, you mean some drugged up bum was threatening people on a train and ended up dead? Well, you know, that's what happens.

Life goes on. Sorry, you chose to live your life that way. Maybe there are people out there that are gonna mourn you. Maybe you're your mom and if you have family, but like the rest of us, no, you make everyone miserable around you all the time. You're a threat to people around you. I'm not sorry that you're gone. Why should I be? I will be very sorry if Daniel Penny ends up in jail for this. And this is

I still say that this case is not, to me, it's not quite getting the attention that it deserves. Even from conservatives, I think that, you know, it seems, just from my perspective, it's not getting like a Kyle Rittenhouse level of attention. And it should, because this is worse than Rittenhouse, folks. This is a lot worse, actually. And Rittenhouse, I was, you know where I was on that case.

fully in support of him and he never should have been put on trial either but This is a lot worse. It just is Because you know the other thing about this case is that there is no part of what Daniel Penny did Where you can go, okay. Yeah, but that was stupid. He shouldn't have done like with Kyle Rittenhouse I think almost everyone agrees that Shouldn't have been put on trial with self-defense thousand percent that all of that but

Yeah, you shouldn't be going into the middle of a riot. I wouldn't recommend that. That's not a smart thing to do. Daniel Penny was just on the train going to work. He didn't seek out this situation at all. He was just on his train on the way to work. He gets thrust into it as a guy who doesn't want it. He's thrust into it.

And he's suddenly put in a position where I can do the right thing to protect others or I could just sit there and let this guy harm other people. Because the other thing that Daniel Penny knows, if I'm to try to get into his head, he knows that, OK, this guy's a threat. Clearly, he's making himself known as a threat. He's probably not a threat mainly to me. Like, he's probably not going to lie. I can protect myself.

But there's women on this train, there's children on this train, there's other people on this train who are not as physically fit as I am. He's a threat to them more than he's a threat to them. And so Daniel Penney in that situation decided to do the right thing in a situation he didn't ask for, he didn't seek out, he didn't put himself in. So Rittenhouse was an outrageous case, this even more so. And I think it should be getting at least that level of attention. I'm not sure that it is, and I think that's a shame.

All right, let's go to this, not exactly the most important story in the world, but maybe the funniest. Last week, we talked about Jaguar's new woke ad that they just put out. It's an ad for their cars, I guess, but it doesn't feature any cars or anything. It features nothing that has anything to do with cars or anything that would remotely make anyone want to buy one of their cars. Actually, the first time we talked about this last week, I was a little bit, I was slightly hesitant.

in talking about it, because in the back of my mind, anyway, I'm thinking to myself, like, are we sure this isn't some sort of parody? Are we sure this isn't satirical in some way? Is this some kind of joke that I'm just not getting? Am I getting trolled here? But no, it turns out that's that was not meant to be a joke. It was 100 percent serious. So you've probably seen that. You've also seen the redesigned logo that they have there.

And it went from a logo that looked kind of slick and cool and masculine, a look that makes sense with a name like Jaguar, to this new look, which to me, just based on the look and the font, kind of looks like a brand of cheap, fruity wine for women or something. It definitely doesn't look like a car company brand. So this redesign and the new look and everything has been roundly mocked by everybody everywhere for good reason.

And that has prompted finally a response from Jaguar's managing director. And this is how we know that it wasn't meant to be a joke. So I'm gonna read now from, this is from a website called mylondon.com. Jaguar's managing director, Rodan Glover, has expressed his disappointment over the vile hatred and intolerance seen in reactions to a new advert from the luxury car maker. The company faced a storm of online criticism for the ad, and

Glover explained that Jaguar needs to stand out. If we play in the same way that everybody else does, we'll just get drowned out. So we shouldn't try to turn up like an auto brand. We need to reestablish our brand at a completely different price point. So we need to act differently. Oh yeah, that's right. Because that's marketing 101 apparently. If you're an auto brand, you don't want to seem like an auto brand. Now wait a second. Isn't that exactly what you want? Isn't that...

Whatever the brand is, don't you want to seem like a brand for that? Don't you want people to know what it is you're selling from an ad? Isn't that literally the whole point of the ad? But you know what? We're not going to even get into that. I don't need to dissect what this guy has said. There's really no part of this worth remarking on except just this, the guy's name. The head of Jaguar, which just put out the gayest car ad of all time, is named Rodon Glover.

R-A-W-D-O-N-G-L-O-V-E-R. Raw Dong Lover. That's his name. Raw Dong Lover. That's just his name. I don't have any other. I just wanted to point out that's his name. I had to verify this. I didn't believe it. I saw this when people were tweeting about it, that the guy's name is Raw Dong Lover. And I said, no, no, come on. That's no, that's a joke. That's not a real. There's no way that's right. So I

I googled it, I had to google raw dong lover, there's no way around it, I had to actually google it to find out. And yeah, that's his name, Raw Dong Lover is his name. If your last name is Glover, how do you give your child the first name Raw Don? Is that even a name? Is that an actual name people have? Was this intentional by the parents? That's the real story here. There's a whole drama here behind the scenes about this guy and his parents

Your last name's Glover, it's like the most basic last name. And you know what, it's hard to screw that up. There are some last names that are a little tricky. You gotta pair it with it, you gotta figure out what to pair it with. But Glover is, almost anything works in front of Glover. Almost anything, you chose the one name that doesn't work. You chose the one name for Glover that turns it into something horrifically gay.

You can't tell me that wasn't intentional. You can't tell me that. How could it not be? And this is, I'm always shocked that there are parents out there who still don't realize this. And I'm giving the parents the benefit of the doubt on this thing, that this was a mistake. But you have to think about the combination of the first and last name and consider what its other meanings might be. And one of the most important considerations in the naming process, and we've been through this six times with our kids. So we've run this exercise six times. You have to imagine that.

I thought all parents do this. Again, this is like the first thing we do when we think of a name. Before we get into, oh, that name has meaning, it's a biblical name, a saint name. Before you get to that, before you get to that, you think, okay, what are all the ways that your children's peers in the future might turn your child's name into an insult? Which is easy for me because I just have to think back to, okay, when I was in fifth grade, what would I have said about this name? And, you know,

You're always going to have a few names that you like, but you have to abandon because you realize that they could be rhymed in a certain way or pronounced a certain way or abbreviated a certain way. For example, my wife, for a long time, she really wanted to name one of our boys Titus.

And it's a cool name, I admit. She made a good case for it. She says it is a Catholic saint. And also it sounds like a Roman emperor. It is a Roman emperor. It sounds like a gladiator or something, Titus. It's a strong name. But I said, you can't, the first three letters of the kid's name cannot be T-I-T. You can't, yeah, they're gonna be homeschooled. But still, I'm not gonna throw them. They're gonna be on a playground one day. They're gonna have friends. You can't throw them. You just can't do that to them. You're making it too easy.

Maybe it's too easy on these other kids. Giving them the first three letters are TIT. You can't do it. So none of those things were considered for Rod Don Glover. And now look at him. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It's a shame. Let's move on. The trans lawmaker, quote unquote, Sarah McBride, after losing, there were all kinds of jokes I could have made transitioning from that

into this. There's all kinds of jokes. I'm not making any of the jokes. I'm just saying I could have. In my head, all these jokes are popping into my head about the transition from that story to this one, but we're not going to even do it. We're not going to get into it. The trans lawmaker, Sarah McBride, so-called, after losing the bathroom battle in Congress, was on Face the Nation on Sunday, whining about it. Let's hear some of those wonderful complaints.

I think we are all united that attempts to attack a vulnerable community are not only mean-spirited, but really an attempt to misdirect. Because every single time we hear the incoming administration or Republicans in Congress talk about any vulnerable group in this country, we have to be clear that it is an attempt to distract.

It is an attempt to distract from what they are actually doing. Every single time, every single time we hear them say the word trans, look what they're doing with their right hand. Look at what they're doing to pick the pocket of American workers, to fleece seniors by privatizing Social Security and Medicare. Look what they're doing undermining workers. And here's also what we have to be clear about, because I think the last week has been a prime example of this.

Every bit of time and energy that is used to divert the attention of the federal government to go after trans people is time and energy that is not focused on addressing the cost of living for our concern. You know, and this is always the move with these people. The moment the trans activist starts losing, he immediately switches course to, oh, well, this isn't even important. You know, why do you care so much? Why do you care so much about it? And, you know, all I'm going to say to that is, OK, fine. I agree, Congressman. Let's let's take you at your word.

Let's go with that. This trans stuff is just a culture war distraction, is what you're saying. You'd rather focus on the issues that really matter. Great. Sounds good to me. And this is what we've heard from trans activists lately a lot, as they've lost literally every battle at every level of government for the last year or more. They're taking L after L after L. And now they're falling back on calling the issue a distraction and so on. So, all right, again, fine. Then how about this? Here's my proposal based on that logic.

Because I agree, we got other things to think about and so many other things that need to be done. So I would also love to put this issue to the side completely and just be done with it. So I agree with Congressman McBride, it sounds like. So how about this? Here's how we can achieve that, okay? Let's just go back to what it was before. And by that, I mean like 20 years ago. If you wanna cross-dress on your own time, if you wanna play make-believe in private,

You can do that, but don't try to make anyone in the public play along with it. Don't try to force your self perception on anyone in any way at any time. Don't try to impose it on kids most especially. Don't try to recruit kids into this. Don't try to have public accommodations changed for your sake. Don't try to change the language for your sake. Don't do anything at all to foist any of this on anyone else at any point. It's not important anyway, right?

It's a distraction. Great. So stop creating distractions. You guys are the ones who forced this issue into the forefront. You're the ones who did that. That was all on you. It was your choice. And now your ideology has been absolutely demolished. You've lost over and over and over again. You wanted this fight. None of us chose it. Okay, if you go back 20 years, there wasn't any conservative who would say, hey, you know what, let's have a big fight over the transgenderism.

You know, it was a niche kind of topic that was, you know, they might have debated on a medical level and with the DSM and all that kind of stuff. But it wasn't a central sort of cultural battle. And nobody among conservatives was saying, let's, you know, let's make this into... No, that was you guys. You saw your opening.

back 10 years ago or so, and you said, now's the time. Now we're gonna put this thing right in the center of the culture. We wanna change the laws. We wanna change language. We wanna change policies. We wanna change the way sports teams are set up and bathrooms and everything. And now's our time. You chose to do that and you lost. And you're just getting, you are getting destroyed politically in this thing. And you're gonna keep losing. You'll never win.

So just back away, give it up. Your self-identity, you know, I can't, no one can tell you what you're allowed to think about yourself. Nobody ever tried. You can see yourself any way you want to see yourself. I can't stop you from seeing yourself a certain way. I can't stop you from saying anything you want about yourself. Nobody can stop that. Nobody's trying to. It wouldn't be possible anyway. So, you know,

Keep it in your own life. Keep it private. And don't ever try to impose it on the public in any way ever. And then we can all move on and talk about other things. Deal?

Good, sounds like a deal.

but they need your help. Go to preggeryou.com and make a tax-deductible donation. Whatever you give right now will be tripled and have three times the impact. Donate $10, it triples to $30. Give $100, it triples to $300. Preggeryou is 100% free to everybody with no fees or subscriptions. They don't rely on ads or clickbait headlines. Contrary to what the left says, Preggeryou isn't funded by a handful of billionaires. It's funded by people just like you. In order to keep making great content, reaching millions, and changing minds, Preggeryou needs your help.

Please make a 100% tax-deductible donation at preggeryou.com today, and your gift will be tripled.

Our Daily Wire Plus Black Friday sale is live. Get 50% off new annual memberships right now. Normally, this is where I'd share a code, but not today. No code needed. Just head to dailywire.com slash subscribe and claim your new Daily Wire Plus membership for 50% off. With Daily Wire Plus, you get it all uncensored daily shows with limited ads, live breaking news you can trust, and premium entertainment reshaping culture. From decades number one documentary Am I Racist to exclusive series and hit movies, Daily Wire Plus offers it all and more.

Your support makes this fight possible. Don't wait. Join the fight and save 50% today. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

Our daily cancellation begins with a very viral video that has divided the internet. And as always, the divide is between people who are obviously right and people who are obviously wrong. The video was posted to Twitter over the weekend and has since been viewed over 20 million times. It's not clear when this was filmed or who exactly the people involved are, but none of that really matters for the purposes of our conversation today. As you'll see, this is a dispute between a middle-aged woman and a group of people walking on a trail in a park in Fort Collins, Colorado.

The clip was posted by an account called I Mean Therefore I Am, who adds this caption: "We don't hate Karens enough. Watch as one tries to lecture and stop a person with a service dog from enjoying a walk in Fort Collins." This is another so-called Karen video. The person who posted it thinks that for all of the relentless vitriol aimed at Karens, the real problem is that there isn't even more, apparently. They're the most hated group on the planet, but they should be even more hated.

Now, you might think, aren't there any other groups that deserve a little bit of criticism sometimes? Can't some of this anger and energy be directed occasionally at other demographics that behave in objectionable ways sometimes? No, of course not. Let's just keep hating the Karens, also known as middle-aged white women, because they're a safe group to hate, after all. So let's just stick with that. But is the middle-aged white woman in this video actually deserving of hate? Well, let's watch and find out.

So I'm barred from going to a park because of a service animal. What? Do you own this park? I live right up there. So do I. I've been doing this three times a week. Okay, so? Do you own this park? Service animals are not allowed. Do you own this park? Dogs are not allowed on this trail. I'm recording you guys. We're from the community college, that's fine. What? We're from the community college, that's why we're here today. We're on a field trip.

So this service dog is allowed in the classroom as well. I'm pretty sure it's federally protected law. Yeah. No, this belongs to the City of Fort Collins. So the way the federal law works... You're saying that the American with Disabilities Act doesn't apply to... Federal law trumps state law. ...to city of Fort Collins regulations? When you have a protected wildlife area, dogs are not allowed. That is a hard and fast rule.

Did you see the disturbance of the animals around you as you walked? So service dogs are legally permitted anywhere in the country that visitors can go. So even if dogs are excluded, this is a service animal. So you can call the authorities all you want, but technically this is a completely legal thing. Did you know that there are protected... We're gonna move on, okay? Alright, alright. You guys...

Okay, so let's review for a moment. These people have decided to bring their dogs to a park where dogs are explicitly forbidden. The woman explains that one of the reasons for this rule is that dogs disturb the other wildlife at the park. The other people claim that the dog is a service dog, which means that they have the right to bring it wherever they want, whenever they want. Now, let's clarify a couple of things here. First of all, even if this animal is a legitimate service dog, and that's a big, massive if,

That does not in fact mean that they have the right to bring it wherever they want. The Americans with Disabilities Act, which is a disaster in many ways and imposes all kinds of totally ridiculous and counterproductive regulations all over the place, actually does not state that service dogs can go anywhere. In fact, certain parks and zoos, for example, are specifically carved out by the ADA as places where service dogs may not be allowed. So it seems that the, quote, Karen is right on the legal merits here. But

So that really should be the end of it, by the way. Like if she's just right, then she's right. So what's your argument? Yeah, but I don't, but I want to do it anyway. Yeah, but what you want to do? It's not allowed. She's right. Sorry. I know you want to do something differently, but it's not allowed. But the other major issue is that, of course, the concept of a service dog has been like so many other concepts in modern times expanded to the point of total meaninglessness.

So if a person says that they have a service dog, it might mean that they're visually impaired and need it in order to get around. But it might also mean, and these days more likely means, that the dog is something like an emotional support animal or whatever, which is to say that the dog is just a pet. And in so many cases, service dog has become just another word for pet. Now, the law unfortunately does allow people to call a dog a service animal for any number of ridiculous and wholly fraudulent reasons.

Although the law, again, still does not permit the dog to be brought to all public locations, especially not areas where there are other animals that also need to be protected. But even so, it is true that the law gives much more leeway than it should. Because in reality, the title of service dog should almost exclusively, almost exclusively apply to seeing eye dogs. Almost everything else, with maybe a few other legitimate medical exceptions, should not qualify.

If you need an emotional support animal, you don't actually need an emotional support animal. What you need to do is grow the hell up. Okay? We would treat an adult like a freak if he walked around with his blankie or his teddy bear, you know, for his emotional support. We should have the exact same level of contempt for adults with emotional support animals. It's embarrassing. It's infantilizing. Now,

That might not apply to this specific situation. Maybe this was a legitimate service dog, but the principles remain true. Regardless, again, again, regardless, the woman is right about the law here. Either way, that's the fact. I want to move past this particular incident and these specific people with their probably illegitimate, but maybe legitimate service animal. I want to go back to the caption, which obviously reflects what seems to be the prevailing sentiment in our society where we're told we don't hate Karens enough.

Now, I disagree. I think something closer to the opposite is true. I think we don't appreciate so-called Karens enough. Now, I've already made the case many times that the term Karen is a racist slur that no serious person, certainly no conservative, should ever use. The fact that it's a racist slur really isn't up for debate. It just is. And by the way, it started that way, too. That's how it started. It started as a way for black people on Twitter to make fun of white women. Like, that's the genesis of this term. I hate to tell you, that's where it comes from.

It is a pejorative term used to refer to a people of a certain race and gender. In literally any other context, we would all agree without debate that it is a slur. As I've explained in the past, if I started calling all annoying black women Shaniquas, there would be no argument that it's racist. Certainly, if I were to say we don't hate Shaniquas enough, I would be roundly condemned as a racist by basically everybody on both sides of the political divide.

Same if I started calling obnoxious Asians ching chongs, you know, you get the point. In any other example you can possibly think of, it would be a slur. But we're supposed to accept the idea that being racist and bigoted towards white women somehow doesn't count. It's different for them. And for whatever reason, many conservatives don't just go along with this, they eagerly participate in it. But let's put all that aside for a moment.

I have defended middle-aged white women against the Karen slur in the past. What I'd like to do now is go a step further. I think society needs the sorts of people that we call quote unquote Karens. I am grateful for them and you should be too. Because what are the so-called Karens doing in most of the videos that go viral? They're trying to enforce the rules.

They're attempting to restore order in a world of chaos and confusion. There's a reason that this is so upsetting to people nowadays. Why is it? Why is it that nowadays this type of woman is so reviled? Well, because in past societies, in basically every past society everywhere on earth, there was a strong sense of etiquette and a set of commonly understood social taboos that governed how people behaved. Our society has done away with virtually all of that, not for any noble reason, but

But simply because so many people in this country want to be able to do whatever the hell they want and break any rule they want whenever they want, regardless of the problems and inconveniences it causes other people. They don't care about anyone but themselves. This is why they're impervious to shame.

You know, one can only feel shame if they at least at some level actually value anyone aside from themselves. But these people don't care. They don't value anyone or care about anyone else or anything else. It's no wonder that in a culture filled with so many of these types, the so-called Karens would become public enemy number one. Now, we must note that

I'm afraid to say that, well, I'm not afraid to say, unfortunately, I must say that dog owners in particular have a tendency to fall into this and to disregard everyone around them. Not all dog owners, certainly. I'm a dog owner. Guess what? I don't fall into this. But some of them seem to think that they're imbued with the mystical right to bring their dogs anywhere and everywhere all the time.

But why should this be allowed? Why should other people have to put up with your pet, even in places where it's obviously not appropriate to bring animals, such as at a restaurant or a grocery store, on a plane? Well, they should have to put up with it because the dog owner wants to bring their dog. And the only thing that matters in the whole entire universe is what they want. Your desire to eat at a restaurant with basic first world sanitation doesn't register to them. It means nothing. The only thing that means anything is what they want to do.

That's how they think. By the way, the restaurant thing, if you think I'm exaggerating this, we were debating this on Twitter. It won't surprise you to learn. I made this point about, well, don't bring your dogs in restaurants. All kinds of dog owners coming out of the woodwork to say, well, no, I'm going to bring my dog in any restaurant I want. Why do you need to bring your dog until people are eating? Can you not at least not bring the dog into places where it's a dining area?

You have an animal that licks his own butt and in the dining area, I'm paying money to eat here. Can I at least not have the animal there? And you got all these dog owners saying, no, I wanna bring my, why should you? Cuz I want to, just cuz I want to. That's it, that's the only reason, I just wanna do what I wanna do. And it's like it doesn't register on them that that's not a valid argument. That's just you saying you're a selfish, which I get it, I know you are, but that's not a justification.

So the Karens are the ones, they are the only ones really with the guts to call these out to their faces. I think it's great. In a world full of entitled brats who demand that the rules conform to their preferences, the Karens are there standing in the gap, raging against the dying of the life and the dying of our social norms and etiquette. We also see this, it's not just with dog owner, we see this especially in customer service situations.

That Karen is so reviled, so often condemned for her propensity to call for the manager. But why does she do that? Because customer service is horrifically abysmal these days. We all know that. So often as a customer, you find that you are paying for the privilege of being treated with total disregard, if not outright contempt, by the employees whose wages you are subsidizing. I went through a drive-thru this morning. I handed it.

Pull up to the window. I say, hey, how are you? No response from the person. They don't even say a word. They just say, pull up to the next window to get my food. No word, not a word, not a greeting, not anything. Okay, I'm paying your, your only job is to smile and say hello and hand a bag. That is your whole job. And you're not doing, you can't do it. You refuse to do it. Now, most people just sit there meekly and take it.

allowing themselves to be flagrantly disrespected by people whose whole entire job is to treat them well and care about their experiences. Karens are the only ones who don't go along with that program, and I applaud them for it.

Cuz I admit, I'm guilty of this. I go to the drive-thru, they hand me an order, half of it is wrong. You can't even get the, not only do they have contempt for you, they hate you just for being there. And we just accept that, that's okay. You know right away, if you have an order that involves more than two food items, at this point, you know for a fact that it's gonna be wrong, at least partially.

Like most people, when that happens to me, I'm like, whatever. Okay, all right, I guess I'm eating this now. I wanted a hamburger, you gave me a chicken. I guess, well, all right, I'll eat chicken, fine. Cuz I don't feel like dealing with it. But the Karen, okay, the so-called Karen, she's the only one who says, hell no, I'm the customer, I'm paying. Hey, guess what, buddy? You're gonna get my order right, provide me with competent service, or else you're gonna have a problem. I'm gonna cause a problem for you.

And you can pull out your stupid phone and you can get it on, you can put it on Twitter. I don't give a, okay, you're gonna give me proper service. I'm paying you, this is what I paid for, give me what I pay for. I think more of us should be Karens, a lot more of us. Maybe then there wouldn't be so many lazy incompetent brats everywhere. So again, I say thank God for Karens. Thank God for middle-aged white women who don't have time for your, they are the unsung heroes of our society, okay? They are, they're not canceled.

Not on this show. On every other show they are. Not on this one. Instead, it is the selfish jerks who make the Karen necessary. They are the ones who are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.