Speaker 1: Apparently, Ben SHAPIRO believes that localities could or should ban men.
Speaker 2: And we will ban men. Speaker 1: From wearing women's clothes.
You heard that right. According to the pro-freedom folks, it's not enough that we live in a society
where people can wear whatever they want. We need to restrict what people can wear on the basis of
their gender. Now, I'm going to play the clip for you and you're going to notice that there
are some real complexities here about how you would even enforce this. I would argue it's not
even legal. But remember, this is someone who's about freedom and listen to what he's calling for.
She wearing dresses in skirts be illegal for men in public? If so,
should wearing pants for women be illegal in public? Well, pants not so much because there
is a female version of pants that is nearly indistinguishable in many cases from from
male pants. But men wearing traditional female clothing in public. I think that there's a case,
the local zone, that local communities should be able to stop that. Sure.
Why have local laws about being naked or indecent exposure? Or at least we used to.
What? Guess he's reading some chat message now. See if he says more about it.
Looking very closely at chat messages, I guess. Have I seen Kyle Dunnigan, Fresh President,
D.C.? Okay. No, he's off. He's up to something else now. So the argument here is municipalities
should be allowed to ban men from wearing women's clothing, I guess, under some kind
of indecency thing. If you can ban nudity, then you could ban a man from wearing a skirt. This is
absurdly stupid, absurdly stupid. And again, it's counter to the principle of low regulation
and freedom and liberty that these right wingers claim to espouse, number one. Almost certainly
this would be against the law, an ordinance at the local level to restrict what clothing people can
wear based on the traditional gender placement of that clothing would probably be against the law.
The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression. That includes the right to dress
however you want. If you attempt to restrict that based on gender norms, you would almost
certainly violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They say they're for law and
order. This would almost certainly be illegal. They will often cite the obscenity exemption,
arguing that a man in a skirt is somehow obscene is going to be a very, very tough legal argument
to make. But let's put legality aside for a second. Talk about the practical absurdity of
this proposal. For starters, what are traditional women's clothes? The answer varies by society,
and it varies by time period. In some cultures, men wear skirts or dresses, In others, women wear
pants or other items that might be considered masculine. The idea that there is a clear and
fixed line between what men and women should wear is untrue. In addition to that traditional wear,
even within the United States, there are dramatic cultural differences between what is typical,
between what is seen regularly in different parts of the country. But beyond that. Scotland has men
that wear kilts. I guess in Los Angeles, men don't wear kilts. But is it based on where you're from
or where you are? And then can you actually say to Scotsmen in LA who want to wear a kilt? You can't
do that because here the men don't wear it. And in Scotland, it's just ridiculous. It is ridiculous.
And it is another one of these ideas from the so-called freedom crowd to control people's lives
based on arbitrary changing and outdated notions of gender roles. And there is this broader pattern
of them wanting to do this. It's on access to health care. We're going to decide what procedures
are legal and when. It's on voting no early voting and no mail in voting and no voting in
the poor Democratic areas or whatever. The right to exist without fear of discrimination. Oh, let's
ban men from wearing women's clothes. Every single instance of this needs to be pushed back against
if they claim to be about individual freedom. Then they can't also argue for something that would
arguably violate the Constitution on the basis of the opinions of what manly men are supposed
to wear. It's absurd. It's ridiculous. And it goes against what they want you to believe they
actually stand for. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube, YouTube.com slash. That's a forward slash
The David Pakman Show. We'll take a very quick break. What a program today, really, folks. Well,
my gardening skills have certainly improved over the years, as many of you know, but I still have
not figured out how to get a money tree pumping out bills every week. And so that's why we still
are mostly funded by our audience. Through the membership program, you'll get access
to the daily bonus show, commercial free audio and video streams of the show and so much more.
Speaker 3: David Pakman does not have a soul. He doesn't have a soul.
Speaker 1: I don't promise anything about souls. Candace
Owens is right, but I do promise a good time on the bonus show you can sign up at join Pacman
dot com. You can use the coupon code indicted. You all know what it means to get yourself a discount.