Which brings me to the greatest civil rights violation of our time,
which is taking place right now, and that is transgenderism.
And I'm going to make a very strong statement right now and I mean it.
It is worse than Jim Crow laws because we are mutilating the bodies of children.
How could you not see that as something worse?
You segregated white people versus black people,
you wouldn't be harming children and we are doing that.
>> Yeah, yeah,
Candace Owens really just said that Jim Crow laws enforced segregation.
They don't even compare to the modern transgender movement and
her entire argument in comparison is just so blatantly stupid and false.
But this reply to the clip that Jason Campbell posted on
Twitter totally destroys the basis for her argument.
So let's pull this reply up, this person said, to separate solely based on their
race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status to the community
that may affect their hearts and minds in a way, unlike ever to be undone.
That was Chief Justice Earl Warren in the Brown v Board of Education
decision from 195.
And like was mentioned in that quote, the decision heavily focused on
the the detrimental impacts of segregation on children.
Although Candace Owens would have you believe that segregation wasn't
harmful to children.
And I hate to break it to you, Candace, but
segregation is even harming children right now.
According to urban.org,
children who grew up in more racially segregated metropolitan areas
experience less economic mobility than those in less segregated ones.
And more racially and economically segregated regions tend to have lower
incomes and educational attainment and higher homicide rates.
But, [SOUND] you know, Candace never let facts stand in the way of her stupid
arguments, so let's listen to a little bit more of it.
>> The same usual suspects are supporting it, the mainstream media.
Look around you, New York Times, the Washington Post,
they are fostering this delusion.
They're saying it's compassionate to allow your child to pick their gender.
The science is in, guys, it's totally fine to allow children to take drugs that
chemically castrate them, that render them infertile for the rest of their lives.
It's good for their mental psyche, there are all sorts of doctors and
people with PhDs that are writing it.
In fact, doctors and surgeons are performing
these procedures to mutilate the bodies of our most vulnerable.
They're talking about something that is borderline Frankenstein,
it is Frankenstein.
These are human experiments that are being performed on children.
>> I was just gonna say, Candace,
it's not access to gender affirming care that's harming these children.
In fact, in a lot of instances, it's saving their lives.
But what might harm them is calling them Frankensteins.
I think that would be more harmful to them than having their gender affirmed and
taking away access to that care, that's what's hurting them.
According to reporting from CNN,
major medical associations say that gender affirming care
is clinically appropriate for children and adults with gender dysphoria.
Just a psychological distress that may result when a person's gender identity and
sex assigned at birth do not align,
according to the American Psychiatric Association.
More than 50% of transgender and non-binary youths in states across the US
seriously considered suicide in the past year, according to a new survey
data on a worsening LGBTQ+ youth mental health crisis.
The Trevor Project, which is a nonprofit organization dedicated to LGBTQ+ youth
suicide prevention, released state-level data from nearly 34,000 queer and
trans youth ages 13 to 24, showing alarmingly high high rates of suicide
attempts, depression and anxiety across liberal and conservative regions.
So just don't fall victim to the framing from the right wing of this issue,
they do not care about protecting the children.
If they cared about protecting the children,
then they would actually care about protecting gender affirming care,
which is shown to decrease instances of suicide in trans and non-binary youth.
That's not their agenda, is to protect children,
it's just a bigoted agenda against trans-people and
to enforce their crystal fascist ideology onto everyone in this country.
>> Yeah, I think you phrased it really well, Rayy,
about just how starkly and divisively Candace Owens raises this and
every issue to hurl insults at a vulnerable community,
that's dealing with a very vulnerable subject, does not benefit anybody.
And to say it harshly and to get excited for
saying it harshly to get your views does not help anything.
I think it's a complicated issue to a degree and I think that you need to listen
to the people themselves who are going through this difficult time.
And I think you need to respect the families that are trying to support
their children more than lawmakers or
pundits that are trying to decide things for them and block off options for them.
I think that it is also very interesting to see that you can,
let me rephrase it this way, you can see through
the intentions of these people like Candace Owens.
Because they don't care about the effects on the actual group of children
that they are speaking of and trying to make decisions on behalf of,
because conveniently, they don't mention suicide rates, depression rates.
So their opinion effectively is we think it's better for a trans-child to die,
to kill themselves rather than have a medical treatment that
will make them happier and feel more affirmed in their identity.
And that's just obviously a completely insane position.
>> Candace Owens, listen, is this the same person who yesterday was in
tears because Bud Light put a rainbow on their can?
And she wants to portray herself now as some brave culture warrior
fighting against suffering children.
I mean, it's disgraceful, and the fact is,
she is not in the presence of the violence this rhetoric creates.
And these people will not stop until trans people are terrified, that they
don't feel like they belong here, that they are attacked in the street.
And in their less guarded moments,
they've made that really clear in the things that they've said.
And the fact is a lot of these things are being turned into law in
states like Indiana and in Idaho.
And it's creating a reality where these trans advocates have no
advocates of their own.
Like we have a party that is terrified to make social issues into an issue for 2024.
And we do that at the cost of these people who now
feel they've been used as props and that they are voiceless.
And it is a disgraceful thing that she's doing here and
you wish you could say she's better than that, but we know that she is not.
>> Yeah, absolutely not, and to that point that the Democratic Party really needs
to step up and actually do something for trans people and attempt to protect trans
rights, especially with the onslaught of bills to restrict lives of trans people.
150 bills, 150 of them were filed in state legislators last year.
And now, they are becoming law, they are getting passed and becoming law.
Take a look at this headline from CNN, Indiana and
Idaho enact bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
You know what gender-affirming care includes?
Letting them dress as the gender they identify as or
using that name or using those pronouns.
That's included in gender-affirming care which is getting banned.
But let's continue on and look at more in depth,
what else is getting banned in these state legislators from CNN?
The Indiana legislator, legislation, excuse me, which takes effect July 1st
states that physicians or practitioners who provide minors with such care,
which includes puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery intended to help
transition genders will be subject to discipline by their regulatory board.
Doctors who are following best practices guidelines are going to be subject
to discipline for doing their jobs and following the guidelines and
the standard of the American Psychiatric Association.
But it continues on that under the Idaho Law,
which takes effect on January 1st 2024, physicians or
practitioners who provide gender-affirming care, which includes puberty blockers,
as well as surgeries, could face a $5,000 fine and a felony charge.
A felony for doing their job to the best of their ability and
doing no harm, a felony.
[SOUND] We also have this quote here from Brad Little, the governor of Idaho who
says in signing this bill, I recognize our society plays a role in protecting minors
from surgeries or treatment that can irreversibly damage their healthy bodies.
However, as policymakers, we should take great caution whenever we consider
allowing the government to interfere with loving parents and
their decision about what is best for their children.
But signed the bill though, and signed the bill to do exactly that.
And mind you, he's talking about protecting children's healthy bodies from
these surgeries when most of these bills have explicit carve outs so
that cisgender kids can still have plastic surgeries.
So a cisgender girl who's under 18 could still have a breast augmentation or
get a nose job, no attempt to ban those types of plastic surgeries that
are purely aesthetic for cis kids, but just for trans kids.
But they want you to believe that this is about protecting the healthy bodies of
children from unnecessary surgeries.
It's a ridiculous lie and it needs to be called out whenever it's seen, Ben.
>> So I think that's an interesting distinction you you made there, RayY and,
and this might,
I hope I don't reverse any of the goodwill I might have gotten with the last story.
But this is an issue that I still think has a level of nuance that I think we
are missing, at least in my opinion or as I currently see it.
I think there should be a distinction between gender-affirming care
that is reversible from surgeries that are not reversible because I don't personally,
maybe you two can enlighten me in something that I don't understand,
on something I don't understand.
But I have trouble circling the square of the fact that we,
it is scientifically also proven though, that your brain does
not fully mature until late twenties, like 27, 28 years old.
So I think we, sometimes, with falling into splitting
our opinions strictly along lines that are sometimes
missing nuance, we fall victim to the arguments of
the other side without bringing that nuance to the table.
So I'm very curious why you guys might think that it's okay to do an irreversible
surgery when your brain is not fully formed until your late twenties?
Or do you see the distinction being between that and reversible
gender-affirming care, which I fully support someone's choice to be able to do?
>> Well, not so much of the bad faith of it, honestly.
Is that, for example, in Indiana,
you cannot have transition surgery if you are a child, period.
In most states, you cannot begin hormones or have irreversible surgeries as a minor.
These are laws that are being written that look like they're doing something but
they're really just red meat to a Republican base that wants to desperately
hide that these Republicans aren't working.
I mean, these laws are just designed to authorize people and, in most cases,
the things that they're banning aren't even things that are happening anyway.
It is just the peak of looking like you're doing something when, in fact,
all you wanna do is hurt people.
>> That's what I'm asking though is, is why not?
I'm not sure, Max, if you're saying there that you also agree that irreversible
surgeries should not be happen on minors.
But if not, why don't we on the left make that distinction so
that we can't be carved with a broad brush like that or painted with a broad brush.
>> Well, I think the challenge there is that you need to elevate actual trans
messengers.
I, as much as I would love to be, I'm not the ideal messenger for this story.
And as much as I'm trying to educate myself as well, I think in this case, I
defer completely to people who are on the ground saying that these laws don't work,
that these are fighting things that don't really exist.
>> I had irreversible surgery when I was a minor and
it wasn't gender-affirming surgery.
But no one questioned whether or not my irreversible surgery if I was
ready to make that decision because it was deemed medically necessary,
which is the same case for any minor who's transgender, who's getting the surgery.
And there's so few of them, very, very few of them are happening.
In most states, as Max pointed out, it's not legal, but in the places where it is,
even within the tiny population of people in America who are trans and even tinier
population of them who are children are having these types of surgeries.
And lots of children are having surgeries and know they're irreversible surgeries.
But there's never the question there if they're ready to do that.
But the satisfaction I'll say with gender-affirming surgery is
higher than it is for most people who have surgery.
And so the people who are dissatisfied after transitioning and
having gender-affirming surgery, the dissatisfaction rate is significantly
lower than cis people who have surgeries afterwards.
So there's a lot of factors, I think,
to sort of push back against the idea that this is impossible.
But really, what's important to highlight is the fact that it's not just
these bills, don't just ban those surgeries, right?
It bans puberty blockers, which is,
if they're not even specifically targeting things.
And as Max pointed out,
they're trying to make things illegal that are already illegal within these bills and
they're, alongside that, passing things that are significantly more insidious.
>> Sure, and that I fully understand,
and without hearing what specific surgeries you're referring to for
cis people that they regret, it's a little hard to respond directly.
But I guess the difference that people might argue that does also stick in my
brain is that it might be a different level of surgery when it's one that
affects your reproductive organs.
And it's maybe not something aesthetic or something that, but it's something that
will, you know, when your brain is fully formed late in your twenties,
you might wanna have a child that you now can't or something like that.
And I think that's another example of where we instead of always being stuck on
two starkly opposite sides on all of these issues,
we could try to not find compromise that doesn't agree with our morals,
but find compromise that actually can move a conversation forward.
And so I wonder if it is so exceedingly rare and it is something that
is being decided by somebody without a fully formed adult brain.
Why not say on the left, we are the side who is willing to actually have
the discussions that are nuanced and say a compromise that seems reasonable,
that would please and make happy and help affirm the identity and
the life of people who are trans, but who are also minors.
And we have a million protections for minors in society because they don't
always have the ability to make perfect decisions, is that we would potentially
support a bill that banned surgeries for minors but not anything else.
And then we actually can maybe move forward, maybe at some point,
find a middle ground instead of fighting forever and ever on issues without finding
a place we can land and move our society forward together.
>> I'll just respond to that quickly before we go to break.
And I'd say, I think it'd be easier to find this common ground if both sides were
coming at it from the same genuine compassion for protecting children.
But I think with all the stories, the stories we've covered today and
all the stories we see every day, it's not true.
It's just that's not the position that the right wing is coming from.
It's not about protecting children,
it's about passing their bigoted ideology under the guise of protecting
children when we see that they don't try to protect children in other areas.
They don't use that language in other areas,
you know it's the party that wants to protect child marriages for God's sakes.
So it's a little difficult to- >> Fully.
>> Try to find that common ground when it's just not the same sort of good faith
argument coming from that side.
So I think that even sort of trying to engage with that,
you're almost giving too much weight to what they're saying.
>> But I guess that is my point,
is that if they're not coming with good faith arguments, then we are legitimate
in painting their intentions with a brush that makes that clear.
But then, their arguments sometimes have credence back at us when they say, well,
look, you also don't care about children.
You don't care about the nuance of making sure you're protecting them, either.
You're willing to let the very most extreme side of any position dictate and
say that we're monsters by saying, we don't think a minor should have a surgery.
Whereas if our position was able to actually say that is not true,
that's a lie because most on the left also don't agree with irreversible
surgeries for minors.
So stop lying about what our position is, we simply are trying to give
transgender youth the care that they can theoretically reverse one day until
they're not minors anymore, and we're supporting them to protect them.
And then, we win the moral argument in every case.
And we also bring on board people that are on the fence about that issue and
also who hits a little weird to their ear being like, well,
why wouldn't we stop a minor from an irreversible reproductive surgery?
Then, you can actually maybe get public opinion completely beyond
the majority onto your side and can actually move our nation's opinion and,
therefore, our nation's laws toward one that can protect more people
instead of constantly keeping it so wedged and divided.