ports that this is even a question. Why in the world are people not playing against people of equal ability? When was that okay? Why is it okay that your awkward kid who's not good at sports has to go to a school in which only the gifted physically capable people get to be heroes and they get to be lauded for their accomplishments and they get all the boys and the girls and all that? Why is that fair? Why is it fair that people of lower ability don't get to play on an organized sport in high school at least the ones with prestige? They can play unorganized sports or lesser organized sports.

So I feel like we should just scrap the whole thing and say how about people who have roughly equal abilities play each other. If you've got a high school and the high school team you're playing against has Shaquille O'Neal, young Shaquille on the other team is that fair? Should you even have a game? What would be the point of playing? Let's say your tallest guy on your team was 6'1 and you're playing against Shaquille O'Neal's team in high school. Are you going to win? No because for whatever reason he's not like you. He's not like anybody else. So what would be even the point of playing those games? It's like what's the point of swimming against Leah Thomas if you're a woman? What's the point? Because you know how it's going to turn out.

So we don't have a problem of just trans in sports. We have a problem with wildly out of the norm athletes playing in sports. The problem is athletes that are way out of the normal playing on the wrong team. And the wrong team in this case just means ability. It doesn't mean gender. Why in the world do we care the gender of who's on the team?

Now the whole idea that women need to get awards it's just a woman thing. Sorry. Because if it worked the other way it probably you wouldn't see any change. If women had always been the athletes this is true. If women had traditionally been the only ones who played sports and socially we had adjusted to that to a time we adjusted that was right but then we got more aware and said hey men are playing sports how about get some men into these sports. Do you think anybody would give a, no nobody would give a. If sports had always been about women and men wanted to get in, no but nobody would change the law for that. Of course not. It's only because men and boys were playing sports unfairly. I'm not saying that was a good deal. It was very unfair for the women. But the reason it changed is because there was women asking for it. I don't think it works the other way. And I don't think that it was ever a good change because what women ask for is hey can't women get their own awards. To which I say well why can't shitty male athletes get their own awards? Why isn't there a varsity team for short basketball with short male basketball players? Why is that wrong? Why is there not a varsity male basketball team for people under 5'8? Why can't they win an award? Well you say well Scott they're just bad athletes. You don't give awards to bad athletes for whatever the reason. You're sure they're 5'8 but you know you want to reward the good athletes. To which I say but I wasn't born where I can compete with Shaquille O'Neal. Look at me. Am I gonna stop his dunk? So why in the world should I, let's say hypothetically I had no sporting ability, why should I be glorifying the people who were good at a random event? Sports are completely random rules and I as a person who just wouldn't be good at some of those sports I have to go glorify and my tax base goes to support their awesomeness. Why am I paying for some athlete that I'm not?

So first you've got to figure out how we got here. How we got here is that women complained. I would have too. Perfectly reasonable. And they worked to get sort of equal treatment but it wasn't what they should have asked for. They got what they asked for but it's not what they should have asked for. It was good for girls and good for women so I can't fault them for asking for what's good for them. That's the way it works. You do get to ask for what's good for you. I'm not going to criticize people asking for what's good for them. But if we had re-architected the whole thing from scratch we would have said you know that's a good point. Maybe we should just have teams that are based on ability. And the best female players who are on teams mostly with men would still be superstars wouldn't they? Could you imagine if a female made it onto a high-end team in which the only other people who could play for that team were male? Wouldn't that one woman who could actually legitimately make the team be like really? It'd be Danica Patrick. Danica Patrick probably made more money than 99 percent of all male race car drivers. Why? Because she was interesting. She was pretty that helped but she was interesting because she was the highest level female in a largely male dominated sport. What's wrong with that model? Do you think Danica Patrick thinks oh I've been so discriminated against in this male sport or does she think that she is world famous and has great opportunities because of it? I know.

So really the trans topic has everything to do with the fact that women are treated as a little bit more special than men and we've agreed that that's just we're okay with that. And then the trans thing just messes up the whole model. Just messes up the whole model. But I'm going to leave you with this one thought that I'm not going to change. You'll never talk me out of this. The trans are not broken. Trans people are not broken. Sports are broken. Just fix the sports. I know it's not going to happen. I'm just saying look in the right place for the problem. It's not the trans people.

You know who was it? The Trump's Secret Service people testified for the January 6 people. And here's an interesting fact that you would never notice if I were not here to bring it up. You know I always notice. I always mention when CNN runs an opinion piece often by Chris Cillizza. I hope I'm saying that right. And he's one of their superstar opinion people and he'll do a story this sort of anti-Republican by its nature and does a good job. And there's a couple others. Collinson I think is the other one who are their standard go-to. I think they have like three or four big name opinion pieces who always jump in when you need to rescue a Democrat problem. If there's something in the news that's skewed a little bit too Republican you know one of their big names jumps in and squashes it down.

Well I noticed with interest and maybe it could be just summer vacations or something but they've got a what I think is an unknown at least to me somebody named Jeremy Erb who writes the opinion piece to say that the House January 6 committee corroborated key details involving former President Trump's heated exchange with Secret Service when Trump was told he could not go to the Capitol.

So they corroborated key details about that exchange. Let me think what did that story include? Let's say there was a story about him throwing food against a wall which he denies. There's a story about Trump allegedly grabbing the steering wheel of the car he was in to try to encourage the driver to go toward the protests. But yet the reporting by Jeremy Erb is that the key details were corroborated. What do you think were the key details? Which part was corroborated? You see what's missing. Here's a fact that was corroborated. Here's another fact that was corroborated. Here's the fact. Here's the corroboration. It doesn't have that. It just says that key things were corroborated. Were the key things the actual things that you think are the key? Because I think if Trump grabbed the steering wheel of a moving car that would be, I'd like to know that. Did he say that happened? I don't think so. I don't think that was one of the key details. I've got a feeling that no key details that you care about were confirmed at all. And I've got a feeling t