 I'm curious kind of how you're thinking, you know, when you think about your, the way that you put out content and the way that you think about growing your media empire. Here, this is the upload job. What, I don't know what book this is from. Gender Queer. Okay. Stochastic terrorist Chaya Raijic sat down for an interview with journalist Taylor Lorenz, and after watching it in its entirety, I am genuinely stunned that she agreed to do this because she came off as an uninformed, deeply unserious, stupid person who contradicted herself multiple times from start to finish and subsequently had a meltdown on Twitter after the interview was posted for no good reason. So there's lots to talk about here. I've got specific moments that I want to show you. But first, let me just set the stage for you. That's how she showed up to the interview. Wearing a shirt with Taylor Lorenz crying on it and then tweeted a picture of her self-wearing said shirt for internet points and then went on to retweet right wing accounts, lulling at her immature shirt. She also tweeted an image about Taylor Lorenz's eyes, I guess to insinuate that she has crazy eyes or something, but I mean, she looks fine to me. I don't get what she's trying to say here. She also attacked Taylor Lorenz for the timing of the release of the interview, writing, Of course, Taylor Lorenz did the scummiest move possible and released the interview when she knew I would be offline for 24 hours. I don't get why that matters. She also released a summary of the interview from her personal account and she was sure to not forget the fact that Taylor Lorenz is a, quote, Lizard person very relevant here and she was wearing a mask. Yeah. Now, I think that Hassan Piker's reaction to the interview summarizes my feelings perfectly. Quote, I love this interview because it's a perfect demonstration of what these weirdos look like out of their Twitter echo chamber of equally dumb reactionary followers, unhinged and very stupid. And that's exactly right. She came off as an immature, clout, hungry middle school bully who only agreed to do the interview in hopes that she could clip out one or two moments of her owning Taylor Lorenz. But unfortunately for her, the interview did not go the way that she wanted it to as evidenced by the fact that the discourse about the interview in conservative circles is primarily centered on the fact that Taylor Lorenz was wearing a mask and not on the content of what Chaya was saying. Although her shirt did get a couple of lolls that she was looking for to be fair. But let's first get to her stochastic terrorism because unsurprisingly she doesn't take responsibility for any of the bomb threats that she inspired. I've noticed that you haven't necessarily publicly condemned that behavior, publicly told your supporters, listen guys, stop, you know, stop calling in these bomb threats. Who said it's my followers? Do you have information that it's my followers? I guess who else's followers would it be? I don't know. There's 300 million people in this country. So you post bomb threats follow and you're saying it might be just unrelated people? I have no idea. We don't know who it is. It could be entirely coincidental. Who can really say? Astonishing. Now, Taylor Lorenz asked her about this because a report from NBC News, quote, identify 33 instances starting in November of 2020 when people or institutions singled out by Libs of TikTok later reported bomb threats or other violent intimidation. The threats, which on average came several days after tweets from Libs of TikTok targeted schools, libraries, hospitals, small businesses and elected officials in 16 states, Washington DC and the Canadian province of Ontario. 21 of the 33 threats were bomb threats, which most commonly targeted schools and were made via email. Now, sure, correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but when we have 33 examples that follow a consistent pattern of events leading up to said violent threats, I think we can logically deduce that Rychik is to blame here. According to her, she is actually the victim and she actually tried to claim that journalists are responsible for death threats against her in the same way that she's responsible for bomb threats against hospitals. But the problem with this argument is it implies that she knows she's responsible for bomb threats against hospitals. And Taylor Lorenz noticed that and backed her into a corner because of it immediately. So you're against death threats against me? I'm a big, you know, as somebody that's dealt with a lot of online harassment, I don't defend threatening to murder anyone. But I guess I'm curious, you know. Because a lot of times it comes after an attack from the media, like someone like you or another journalist. So are you saying that, like, you know, if somebody posts something and then attacks follow, that person should answer for those attacks? No, that's not what I'm saying. Oh, okay. People like you tell me that all the time. So I'm just asking if you think the same thing. So her attempt to hypocrisy burn blew up in her face immediately because if she accepts that media is responsible for death threats against her, then she has to implicitly accept culpability for bomb threats that she inspired and she doesn't want to do that. So it's a bit of a conundrum. Now, a problem with her logic is that there is a difference between media reporting on public figures and public figures inciting harassment against people who aren't public figures. Taylor Lorenz tried to explain this to her, but she didn't get it because she's dumb. You know, a lot of LGBTQ people say that your posts cause an enormous amount of pain. How does that make you feel? How does it make you feel that your reporting on me causes me pain? I feel sad for that, honestly. So would you stop? No, I'm a journalist in your public figure. But I'm just talking about, you know, these non-public figures, right? These non-public figures that are... Well, if you put yourself out there on a public platform, then you're kind of making yourself public. So anybody that posts on social media is a public figure in your mind? If you're putting your videos out there with the intention that it should go viral, you want publicity. And by the same logic, you're also putting yourself out there, Chaya, meaning that you must also want publicity. Therefore, you accept responsibility for whatever harassment may follow, just like the queer people that you dox into fame, right? Right? Well, of course not. Just because someone's posts as public doesn't mean they have a platform. You're not automatically a public figure if you have a fucking Facebook account. And she refuses to acknowledge the fact that there is a meaningful difference between someone that has millions of followers and someone that has hundreds of followers. But she's obviously doing this to rationalize and justify her own behavior, but it's evident that she can dish it, but she can't take it when it comes to hate mongering. But on the subject of hate, her views on gender identity is where the interview, I think, really goes off the rails because it became abundantly clear that she's never really thought deeply about her own beliefs and doesn't really even have a coherent set of policy priorities when it comes to LGBTQ plus rights. Let's watch. If transgenderism doesn't exist, which it seems like that's what you believe, what happens to all the people living happy lives as trans people? Well, first of all, the whole trans, it's based on a lie. You can't change your gender. So they could go live their life. I mean, I can't tell someone what to do in their house. Sounds like you do want to tell people what to do in their house. I never said that. So you're totally okay with people being trans just not as long as they're in public? No, I never said that. The whole thing is based off of a lie, and I think that this lie cannot be mainstream in our society. It's just a lie. And what harm is it causing, do you believe? I like the truth. I like truth. Right, but I'm saying what's the harm of people expressing their gender identity differently than you believe it to be? What harm are they causing? Like I said, we are a nation of truth, and I seek the truth. Trans is bad because we're a nation of the truth, and I seek the truth. Brilliantly put, Chaya. Brilliantly put. And it's a little ironic coming from the person who believed the lies about the 2020 election being stolen since she was spotted at the January 6th insurrection. And she also claimed as a Jewish woman, mind you, that the anti-Semitic great replacement conspiracy theory is real, but she cares about the truth. Sure. Now she later goes on to claim that the material harm that's being done by trans people merely existing is that it's being pushed on the kids, which, no, it's not. That's not a thing that can happen. People either are trans or they're not. But she incorrectly believes that being trans is contagious and implies that it should be banned, but then she says, no, we shouldn't ban it. You can't really control what people do in their homes, which is true. But then what about when it comes to the public? If it's contagious, then shouldn't we ban it? Well, she hasn't really thought that solution through either. So it's stunning to see how little thought she's put into her own worldview after obsessing with trans people for years. And I guess if banning trans people from existing, including adults, isn't her goal, then what exactly is her fucking solution then? Why are you complaining constantly? Is the goal just to complain in perpetuity about trans people? Are you just bothered that they exist? It doesn't make sense, right? Now, she thinks that we're naive enough to believe that she actually doesn't want to ban trans people from existing, but I'm sorry, when she tweets out things like this, attacking a random trans guy who looks incredibly happy, by the way, she wants us to think that there are no broader implications to take away from that. She doesn't want to ban it. I don't believe that she doesn't want it to be banned, but at the same time, it's very clear that she hasn't thought through her views about this. Now, part of this to me feels like she is externalizing her own internal struggles, especially with posts like that, right? Almost like she's trying to convince herself and everyone else that that random trans guy is actually super miserable even though he looks really happy and she's the one who's actually happy, because happy people obsess with queer people. People who are comfortable in their own skin obsess about what other people do with their bodies constantly, right? Yeah, they're the ones who are sad, not you. Now, she already told Tucker Carlson that she thinks that LGBTQ plus identities can be pushed onto kids because it's alluring, which is a really interesting choice of words to use that stuck with me after I heard her say that, because cis and straight people wouldn't find being trans or gay alluring unless they were tempted by it, and you wouldn't be tempted by it unless you were either trans or gay yourself and you're just kind of fighting that battle. But I mean, it's hard to draw any solid conclusions from her comments here, because her views on gender identity range from incoherent to extreme in a leftist sense. Yeah, I said that right, meaning that she's so anti-trans that she's come full circle and almost supports transgenderism in a way, in a rounded about way nonetheless, but in a way by calling for the abolition of gender entirely. I'm not making this up, so let me show you what I mean by this. You can't change your gender. And what if somebody said to you, you know, you're not a real woman? You're not a real woman because maybe you don't meet these certain specific definitions of femininity. That's fine, I don't care, they can call me whatever you want. But what if you would be forced to live by that system? Do you think it's fair that you would, you know, be forced to live? Is that based in, like, science? Well, I don't think any of it's really based in science. Well, it is. Gender is a social construct. Well, gender is actually made up. Exactly! Yes, we agree on this. We agree on this. Amazing, isn't it? Gender is actually made up according to Chai Ariacic, so go nuts, everyone. Defy gender norms because it's not real. Yeah, I mean, what she's saying is objectively true in the sense that gender is a social construct. And I'm glad that she's at least acknowledging that, but she's acknowledging it for nefarious reasons. But the reason why gender is technically made up is because it's just a way that we express ourselves, right? It's a name for how we express ourselves. Society is what dictates that women should have long hair and wear dresses and act feminine. There's nothing natural about women wanting to wear dresses. We just said that they're supposed to like pink and boys are supposed to like blue. It's completely arbitrary, right? So if you do away with gender, we're all just human beings expressing ourselves in whatever way we like without social expectations. And it seems like that's what she wants. So Chai Ariacic is so fucking stupid that she doesn't even realize that she's become so anti-trans that she has functionally checkmated herself into supporting the pro-trans position. But they explore this a little bit more when Ariacic is forced to think through the implications of her own worldview. And it's not pretty, as you're going to see. Oh, I want to eradicate gender ideology from public life. From public life completely? Yeah, the whole thing is built on a lie. Well, you certainly have a gender yourself. Gender ideology? No, I don't. I have a sex. Gender. There's no such thing as gender. Okay. I said gender is made up. There's no such thing as gender. I agree that gender is a completely social construct. No, it doesn't exist. There are zero genders. I have a sex. I'm female. There are zero genders. Yeah. So you want to live in sort of a post-gender world where everybody can kind of express themselves through personality however they like. Well, that's what it is now. But they're just calling it gender. Do you support those adults having bodily autonomy, dressing, acting, you know, painting their nails or shaving their head or doing whatever they want to do to express themselves? I don't care if a guy wants to paint his nails. So you don't care about... Leave the kids out of it. Don't sexualize the kids. Don't confuse the kids. But I'm going to throw a wrench in things just for a moment here. Just bear with me. What if a guy with painted nails goes out in public? And what if a kid sees a guy with painted nails and then thinks, hmm, maybe I want to paint my nails too? Is that tantamount to him pushing it on kids? Let's take it further. What if a kid sees a straight couple holding hands in public and the kid then thinks, hmm, that looks really cool. I hope to do that too. Is that tantamount to sexualizing kids as well? I mean, it's possible, but she never actually talks about the possibility that straight people could also sexualize kids in the same way that LGBTQ plus people can. And when she's confronted about this, things get somehow even dumber if you can imagine it. Let's just talk about young girls. Why don't you speak out about that? Why don't you speak out about sort of heteronormative cisgender men, traditional men, sexualizing young girls, young female girls? I speak out about the sexualization of kids. But you don't speak out about sort of the sexualization of kids by straight people? I don't discriminate on who's sexualizing the kids, if the kid's being sexualized. Well, but there's only one group of kids that you're talking about, which is you're concerned about sort of people being sexualized by the LGBTQ community. I'm asking, I'm saying a lot of straight older men. Not necessarily the LGBTQ. I mean, if they're, you know, I don't want straight teachers to be talking about their sexuality in schools either. So you don't, you wouldn't be okay with a straight teacher, for instance, discussing their marriage? I think it's weird. Uh-huh. Why would someone discuss their marriage in a classroom? You heard it here first, folks. If you casually mention your spouse, even if you're straight, well, it's weird and you should probably avoid doing that so as to not sexualize the youth. Okay. Well, what would you do if you're a teacher and your spouse brought you your lunch and one of the students saw your spouse and asked, hey, who's that? What would you do in this situation, right? In this predicament, Chai Rychik would be sweating profusely because she wouldn't know how to answer that question. She'd be incapacitated by it because you couldn't say it's your spouse because then the kids would be groomed. So you'd have to say, well, it's my partner, but not my romantic partner, but that person is more than a friend. And on top of that, you know, we're really close and we do nice things for each other. How would you answer that question? I mean, by her logic, if parents display any signs of affection around their kids whatsoever, that's tantamount to sexualizing kids. She's the one who said it. See, I don't think she believes this. It's too stupid for her to believe because it's a standard that's so impossible that literally no one on the planet would be able to live up to it. But the reason why she conceded that straight people could also sexualize kids potentially is because she knows that she looks like a hypocrite for focusing exclusively on queer people. But if the bar for what's considered sexualizing kids was that low, everyone would be a groomer, including her. At some point, like she has done something to flaunt her gender in front of kids. At some point, you know, I heard that she had a partner that just left her. If she was out in public with her partner and held hands with him, she sexualized kids as well, right? I mean, any children's show by her logic depicting a mommy and a daddy would also be grooming, taking kids to a wedding would be grooming. If you ever had a young boy be a ring bearer, congratulations, you groomed that kid. He's scarred for life. I mean, it's a comically fucking stupid view of the world. But bigots like her don't actually apply that same level of scrutiny to straight people because she doesn't actually care about kids. She just wants to demonize queer people. Full stop. That's what this is about. And that's also evident when Taylor brought up her inconsistent standards when it comes to surgical procedures for minors. You seem very against plastic surgery. Are you against women? Well, I'm against exchange surgeries. Uh-huh. What about women that want to get their boobs done, want to get their nose done, want to get cheeky? We're just going to go in circles. Well, I'm just curious. But it's good to note that you're comparing nose jobs to teen girls getting their breast shots. Well, teen girls also get boob jobs to make their breasts bigger, right? So, both are gender-affirming in different ways. You seem very obsessed with one and not interested in the other. So that's kind of what I'm interested in. And I guess I don't really understand that because both are gender-affirming in different ways. I don't call it gender-affirming care. I call it sex-change surgeries for people who are sold the lie that they can change their sex. Now, Chayarachic is lying when she says that minors are getting sex-change operations, but some trans teenagers are allowed to get double mastectomies when they're 16. Now, it depends on the parental consent and the doctor. But if you're against that, why wouldn't you also be consistent and denounce breast augmentation surgeries for minors as well? Because, again, this is about hate, pure and simple. Chayarachic doesn't care about kids. It's why her worldview is so incoherent. And doesn't make any sense. It's why she can't articulate her actual positions very clearly. It's not based on a logically cohesive set of ideological beliefs. It's based on you trans people icky. And it's not surprising because hate doesn't really require any level of intelligence or thought. So nobody really should be surprised by one of the largest hate mongers in the country being comically fucking stupid. And one last thing that I want to leave you with is this tweet from Owen Higgins poking fun at Chayarachic writing, Can you believe I did an interview with this person I hate? I can't stop thinking about her. I have a shirt with her face on it and I can't stop thinking about her eyes. I can't stand her. Yeah, I'm picking up what he's putting down. Hopefully you are too. You know, we all see this for what it is. Chayarachic's fixation on this issue is very telling. And one day she's going to be irrelevant and fade into obscurity just like Anita Bryant. And she's going to have to come to terms with her own sexuality or gender identity. And I'd say that she would regret that if she were a normal person, but I don't actually think that she's intellectually capable of expressing an emotion that complicated. But let's just say that when she eventually comes out or gets outed, her defamation of LGBTQ plus people will never be forgotten. And she might think that it's a good thing now, but history will be very harsh towards her. And I hope that she at least realizes that. Woke Mom Mama Pekano, Pekano, Pekano, Pekano, Pekano Woke Mom Mama Pekano, Pekano, Pekano, Pekano Woke Ideology Woke Tasking Woke Olympic Woke Ideology