'YOU Are An Extremist!' Owen Jones vs Josh Hammer on Gaza, Nancy Mace, El-Sayed, Sharia Law & More

Islam and political Islam, aka Islamism, aka Sharia Law, is irreconcilable with Western civilization, Western democracy, that is simply the case. I speak to queer Muslims, and they feel, often, deeply frustrated, that in a country where anti-Muslim prejudice in bigotry has got worse and worse and worse, their position is weaponized, not by people who want to advance LGBTQ rights, but people who want to demonize Muslims at all. One should walk into Gaza, and say, "I am a gay man." See, I retreated. I support the Palestinian people, and I support their right to exist. They want to kill you. President Trump announced his Gaza deal with massive fanfare, the Board of Peace reached a historic agreement for the complete disarmament of Hamas, he said, "Israeli forces will withdraw." This weekend, however, Israel rejected that plan out of hand. Netanyahu's comments for the first public confirmation of what increasingly felt inevitable, almost a year on, from the so-called ceasefire, the IDF is still carrying out deadly strikes, including two not long after Trump's statement, and it currently controls more of the strip than it did during the actual war. About 70% of the surviving population either can't get back to their homes, or have no home to go to. And Israel's failure to allow in bulldozers and excavators means that the full death toll remains unknown, and Trump's big plans for redevelopment are currently an impossible fantasy. Well, many of the upstart Democrats in a key U.S. election year have made Gaza and Israel a central part of their appeal to liberal voters. So far, Republicans have dealt with rising stars at Zoraan Mamdani and Abdul El Sayed by invoking 9/11 and Sharia Law, but every opinion poll shows that voters on both sides are turning against Israel. Almost half of the country said Netanyahu should be arrested for war crimes on arrival in the U.S., according to Pew Research, the Iran War has taken Trump's approval rating to the lowest for any president before the midterms since 1953. Well, candidates for president used to compete over who loved Israel the most and who would be toughest on Iran. The chances of that happening in 2028 are about as likely as that Trump tower on Gaza beach. Well, joining me now is Owen Jones, political commentator and author of a new book, The Fall of the West. And Josh Hammer, the senior editor at large, at Newsweek. Welcome to both of you. And Owen, welcome back to Uncensored. It has been way too long. I'm always good to have you on the show. The whole premise of your book is really about how Israel is the root of many problems here. Do you feel vindicated by the turning global public opinion, particularly in America in the last two years or so? Well, just to be clear, that's not exactly the thesis. It's the idea that the West with its endless disastrous, catastrophic wars, including support of Israel's genocide, of course. That is a Western war or genocide, even. And as well as its economic model has brought the rest into existential crisis. It's the people who use the victory in the cold was they saw it to get higher on their own supply and have caused a global catastrophe, not just for the West, but for millions of people across the world. But yeah, I mean, a lot of what's happened with Israel's genocide into the West in public opinion, because in the US it used to be impossible to speak out about Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people. And now, more Americans than not by a large margin believe Israel quite correctly has committed genocide, and as per the consensus of genocide scholars, including Israeli-genocide scholars, they want arms to Israel to be ended. They have more sympathy with the Palestinians now than they do with Israel, which is the first time that's ever happened. Amongst the younger Republicans, there's been a massive shift against Israel, but I think what Israel has shown, and I think this is why it's so indicative of the wider fall of the West, if you like, is the West has lost its military supremacy, destroyed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Iran. It lost its losing its economic supremacy because of the economic model it had, but it's also lost its moral supremacy. And that moral claim the West had to be the champion of freedom and democracy and human rights was buried in the mass grave of the crime scene of Gaza, along with tens of thousands of Palestinians, including children. And that's the point. The West no longer has moral economic and military supremacy, and it's frankly partly down. No offense to the guest, who I didn't know who he was, had to Google it, but that the sort of politics that he has promoted has brought the West to ruin. All right, Josh Hammer, once he Googled you, he realized that you were part of the problem, your response. Well, Pierce, I had to Google my interlocutor as well, I never heard of him, and I'm probably never hear of him again after this show, and that's probably best just for both of us. Look, I mean, there's someone to respond to, it's hard to know where to begin. Just to be clear, just to be clear, hang on, hang on, before we go any further, before we go any further, just to be clear, neither of you had to Google me, right? I definitely don't hit you up there, is that all you've got here? That's correct. I miss you. So I always go that far away, but Josh, go on. I think you would probably be instructive for the viewers of this program, listening to Owen Jones, listening to Trink Weeger, Dave Smith, just casually throw about the term genocide. They say with such confidence, with such assertiveness, with not even the slightest hint of questioning their word choice, their diction, and there's a genocide in Gaza. Pierce, I have here in my desk a rock. The viewers can see this, the listeners can only tell you my word that I am holding a rock in my hand. The rock I'm holding in my hand is from the crematorium at Auschwitz. That is a genocide, a genocide is where all of the mass industrial tools of a nation are oriented towards the singular goal of eliminating from the face of the earth a certain type of people with full deliberation and full intentionality, rounding them up in gas chambers, in mass graves, in all of the various horrific atrocities that the Holocaust entails. We can debate what has happened in Gaza for the past few years, we can debate certain tactics, we can debate whether the IDF has done enough when it comes to calling up individual homes and dropping leaflets. We could talk about the international law proportionally, we could talk about the Geneva conventions, we could talk about the fact that it is the most humane civilian to combat in death ratio in the modern history of urban warfare, we can get into all of this. But what we have to get to, at least those of us who are reasonable and peers I know sometimes you struggle for reasonable, yes, certainly my interlock, your appellant does not fit such a description. But what we should strive to is get to a point where we are operating within the overton window of normal discourse, of non hyperbolic, of non catastrophic discourse. This is a war and lest we forget, lest the viewers forget, it is a war started by Hamas. It was a war started on October 7, 2023, lest we forget there was a ceasefire, a full ceasefire in Gaza on October 6, 2023. What happened in October 7, was the equivalent, the equivalent of dozens of 9/11. We're coming up in the 25th anniversary of 9/11. I remember it very well. I grew up in the New York area. I remember vividly seeing the smoke from the twin towers on that most fateful of days. What happened on October 7, was the functional equivalent on the death toll of dozens, dozens of 9/11 on American soil. The meeting American watching this program should ask him or herself. If this had happened in, let's call it Texas. If you had thousands, thousands of Cinaloa cartel commanders who came across the border and just blindly mutilated and raped and butchered. They put babies, nothings, they executed women, plank, plank, range on in the home. How would the United States respond? How would we respond? These are the kind of questions that have gone so far removed from this debate and no matter how many fancy words like genocide get perversely and morally incorrectly and legally incorrectly tossed around. I think it's a comment upon all the visual people to ground themselves in the basic facts. And Owen Jones can laugh his sorry ass off who he wants. No one in the right mind really ought to give a crap. Can I just respond to something you've just, well, I respond if you let me to what you just said that. You just said that babies were put in ovens on seven October. Why lie like that? You know that something. I'm not right. You know that never happened. You know not a single baby. One baby which was trying to be with this kind of exhibits. You had a long spiel and now I'm going to fact correct you because you can't just come on a show like this. You don't do that. I know you're just like accuracy. I know he likes accuracy in these discussions. No babies were put in an oven on seven October. But one baby was killed on October 7th, which was bad enough. That's Milla Cohen. She was eight months old. She was shot through the door of a safe room. That's the baby who was killed on seven October. That's a crime in itself. If that's a crime, which I say it is, by the way, what is the, how to describe a thousand babies, 1,000 infants under the age of one killed in Gaza by Israel since seven October and over 20,000 children. It's for risking in a thousand children. Now, just a quote, just to respond to what you just said, Matt, I understand that you're a big fan of Donald Trump. I don't often quote Donald Trump approvingly. Let's put it mildly. Last year, he said, and I quote, a civilization has been wiped out in Gaza. Now, if I were to say to demand that a civilization was wiped out in Israel. You didn't see it. Yes, he did. Yes, he did. No, no, no, no, sorry. Again, that's not. I'm sorry to hold you right. I'm sorry to fact correct you again, but he did say, quote, this is of a beta grade. He said the civilization has been wiped out in Gaza. And he's absolutely right, nearly every free-standings, literally not true, he was running for sure. Almost every hospital has been attacked, every school's been attacked, most homes have been destroyed. Well over 100,000 people have been violently killed, according to every reputable study. -Also not sure what the police are doing. -A genocide convention. It means any of the following acts committed for the intent to destroy, in whole, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. -And that goes into the field. -And that goes into the fields. -Oh, the great conditions of murdering, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape. -There's no intent to feel at all terms. -Now, I would just note, this is so obvious. -This is so obvious. I would just note with you, because you are a supportive genocide, and I will make that very clear. -I am not. -You said about the Palestinian population of Gaza. You said this is a radicalised population that deserves shame, just scorn, and diplomatic repute. -You weren't talking about Hamas. -They deserve all this. -You talked about the Palestinian population of Gaza. That's what you said. You also said, last month, you said about the population of the party, or do every single party in 2023. You also called for the population transfer of the people, the survivors, of Gaza into other Arab states. You want Palestinians removed from Gaza. You don't want Palestinians to remain a Gaza. That's what you called for. -You never approved for the military occupation. -I think it's a provisional violation. -All provisional violation of Gaza. -Exactly. -You also said that in 2025. -Did you say that? -Did you personally keep out, emphatically, favourite of that guy? -That's simply not true. -Did you say. Sorry. Did you. Did you know what I'm quoting for what you said? Did you not call for the population transfer of the people of Gaza? -No, I. First of all, I think it's a very reasonable option. By the way, there's a very long history of American presence going literally back to the Hoover and Cooled Administration. So, I actually support that. I've actually never explicitly endorsed that myself. -No, no, no. -It calls for both. He said. -Donald Trump in February 2025. In the White House proposed this, by the way. -Yes, and you proposed this. And no, what I said is that. I mean, you passed it. Listen, I don't know whether your IQ is two or three stand deviations below the mean. -But the way the negotiation worked. -No, no, I'm just trying to say what you said. You start. No, but you need to learn a thing in two bad negotiations. You start with. -And they call. our out there claim, and then you arrive at a visual place moderation. Donald Trump did this. -It was his proposal. -Yeah. to float the idea up. -It's absolutely amazing. -It's called that statement. -No one had their underbingo card. -If I called. -Let me just play this play. If I called for the Jewish population of Israel to be removed from Israel, which I don't support, I oppose. I want the peace and security of all those who live with. between the river, Jordan and the Mediterranean. -Yeah, yeah, yeah. -So all of them have equal rights. If I called for the population transfer of Jews from Israel, you would regard that as genocidal. Do you know what? You'd be absolutely correct. You said, if I said the Jewish population of Israel deserves shame, score, and a diplomatic debut, you would accuse me of being genocidal. You'd be correct. You said many gullible libelites. pretend the radical Jew had this of Hamas. Do you not represent the border Palestinian Arab population for that? It's a lie. You believe in collective guilt and you believe in collective punishment. You said that Gaza should resemble a parking lot. You got your wish, by the way. You got your wish tens of thousands of lives. I said the war to the cause of Gaza. of Gaza should resemble a parking lot. That was literally on October 8th, 2023. This is how. This is how wars. You got your wish. Work. This is how wars go through war. by wiping an authoritarian situation. You should look at the posters of Palestine. dressed in Germany circa 1945. This is literally how wars work. No, okay. No. Now, the West, apparently, needs to remind you. of what you're in and how wars work. Now, you accuse the West of. If I called, if I called, again, it's more superior. If I called, well, actually, okay, let me jump in, let me jump in, let me jump in here. Running a business means you want to be available all the time. because if you do miss that call to that text, your competition will pick it up. Today's show is sponsored by Quo, that's Q-U-O. It was developed at a perfect solution for preventing any missed opportunities. It's a business phone system, which keeps all of your allocating your work calls. text and voicemails in one place. That means anybody on your team can pick up the conversation, see the full history. and respond fast, even when you can't. More than 90,000 businesses already rely on Quo. to remain reachable on the professional at all times. You can keep your existing number. I set it up within minutes. There's even an AI agent. which can reply all book appointments when the whole team is offline. That never happens here. Money's on the line. Say hello, we Quo. Try it for free and get 20% off your first six months when you go to Q-U-O.com/pears. That's Quo.com/pears. Actually, Josh, the whole point of the aftermath of World War II. led by the Geneva Convention was precisely because of a collective view. that some of the incidents like the carpet bombing of Dresden. like the dropping of nuclear weapons and so on on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. that this should never happen again. That was why the Geneva Convention got set up. And so, to. In Piers, one of the reasons, like the whole class had a role to play in the Geneva Convention. let's be clear here, it was not. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Of course, of course, of course. But what the point I'm making is to now invoke things that happen in World War II. as a justification for what the Israeli government's done in Gaza. is to miss the point that the whole Geneva Convention was set up. What would you have to stop this happening again? What would you have preferred Israel do in response to the slaughter. of the functional equivalent of three to four dozen 9/11s on their soil? The single largest genocide of Jews in the day, since Heather was like, "What would you have advised them to do?" Because, from my perspective, they've done a pretty darn good job. Has it been perfect? No, have they been blunders? Well, let me give you the. Let me give you the. But let me give you the. Let me. Let me answer. I've said this before, and it's not an exact parallel, I accept it. However, we had, for many decades, the issue with Northern Ireland and the troubles with the UK. And I remember the IRA, a terrorist organisation, committing appalling atrocities, deliberately killing civilians without any pretence of going after the enemy, as well as killing people they viewed as the enemy, like the British Army and so on. But they did this for many decades, and at no point did any British government take a view that the way to resolve this and the way to respond was to carpet bomb parts of Belfast, for example. So we had a parallel right on our doorstep, involved in. It's a carpet bomb. A border. involving backlash between. Well, come on. No, listen. Here's what I would say about. Here's what I would say about Gaza. It's not really that. I said this repeatedly. Because I, or. Hang on, Josh, I've always defended, as you know, Israel's right to defend itself. I did so passionately after October 7th. I got hammered by people on the pro-Palestinian side for doing so. But I stand by what I said for many months after the start of the response to October 7th. But I began quite quickly to say, what is proportionate? What is proportionate here? And, actually, ultimately, I concluded that raising 80% of Gaza to the ground, making it uninhabitable, killing 80,000 or so people in Gaza, as a response to the killing, the appalling killing in a terrorist attack. A mass percentage from around 1200 people. And I just. No, no, no. I include it. But I would be finished by a point, Owen, is that, actually, to me, it's been completely disproportionate. And so. And that's, by the way, that's the view of most of the world. So we make international law enforcement out here on this show. It's my point. I'll finish my point. That is why Israel's reputation has been dragged further down and further down by the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu and his government, which contains people that, I think, are genuine psychopaths like Ben Gavir and Smodridge. So that is my view about it. Just quickly on Dresden, by the way. Dresden was a terrible crime in its own right, and there were people in Britain at the time who opposed what happened to Dresden. Nonetheless, there is no comparison here. Nazi Germany was a military superpower that had conquered Europe and had slaughtered tens of millions of people and committed industrialised genocide and was attempting to quite plausibly at the time achieve world domination. Gaza is the size of East London. It is a tiny, overpopulated strip of land with a rank-time guerrilla army, and it has been wiped out from the face of the earth, deliberately and systematically. And what you just said to that, Piss, I think, is very important. You said it's been made uninhabitable. Again, I quote, "deliberately inflicting on the group, conditions of life calculated to bring about this physical destruction a whole new part." That's what genocide does. It makes use about food. Gaza has been made in an uninhabitable place. Well, you support others, but you support removing the Palestinian population. You support that. You support your definition. Earlier, literally said that there is this specific intent, okay? Yes. So in legal terms, we would say the menswear, the specific mentality, to intend to annihilate a certain population from the face of the earth. How is that possible? Where the civilian to combat in death ratio in Gaza is literally 1.5. It is not in light. It is the most humane civilian to combat in death ratio. And the modern history of urban warfare, how do I know that? Because the literal number one Western world expert in urban warfare, John Spencer, who I believe has been on the show before, he has cranked the numbers on this. And who is going to dispute it? He's Owen Jones, Gunn Dispute, Professor Johnson. Oh, if you want to go to that. Do you really want to go to that? Do you really want to go to the numbers? That there's a subjective intentionality to annihilate a population from the face of earth? No, no. You just made a, you just tried to, you've made a point in that about deferring to authority. Will defer to authority or right? But it will defer to authority. Who to listen to? A blow hard like yourself. He's looking to get, I looked, about 300 views on YouTube, channel, play video, or Professor Omar Bartos, the Israeli-American, Dean's Professor of Holocaust, and it browns, you know. He said, "I'm a genocidal scholar. I'm a scholar of the Holocaust. I know a genocidal." -Okay, so you need one of the. -What about Amos Goldberg? -He's named one. -Goramaskol's. -No, no, no, no. -He's really. -I'm not going to confess. -I'm going to confess. -And then you can respond. -I guess. Amos Goldberg, professor of Holocaust history at the Department of Jewish Studies, contemporary Jewish University of Jerusalem. Daniel Blatman, again, head of the Institute for Contemporary Jewish University of Jerusalem, Rasegaal, associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies. All of these are Israeli. All of these born in Israel, and all of these dedicate their all lives. -They're going to give a study in genocide. -And the Holocaust, they're wrong. -Who to believe? -Schoolers who dedicate their lives to study in genocide. -And by the way, you and the Holocaust. -And you understand your misunderstanding. -Yeah, but hang on, hang on, hang on. All right, Josh, hang on, Josh, Josh. The point, the point surely is this, is that you can say they're wrong, but Owen is right surely to point out that a number of Israeli scholars have concluded that what's been happening in Gaza is genocide. -Who cares? -Well, why would you not care? Pears, I live in a country America that is 50/50 divided in every issue. Why do I care when my very incorrect countrymen happen to say about any given issue, whether it's abortion, guns, who cares? -No, because. -These are debates that happen, and I'm telling you, I'm telling you that the people who's appealing to happen to be wrong, but I want to get back to what they're doing. -Can I ask you a question? -Let me ask you a question. -No, quick talk too much. There is a massive misunderstanding on this panel right now about the law of proportionality, which has been invoked numerous times. Here's what it does not mean. Here's what it means. A lot of people hear this phrase. The law of proportionality, and they say that is not proportionate when, let's say, Israel takes out 50,000 Hamas fighters, whatever the number is, in response to 12,000 civilians killed. The number is not one to one. That's literally not the international law definition. The international law definition is whether or not the military goal, the goal of the operation is proportionate to the expectation of collateral damage in civilian casualties. That is the actual calculation under international law. That is totally not what the prevailing understanding is. I think the understanding that has been presented here on this discussion today. So based on that, based on. Sorry, you're just speaking a huge lead here. 87% of those killed according to elite IDF estimates are civilians. And what Israel has done systematically? I know you'll just talk over me. I know that. I don't know what Israel has been doing. What is spread by every other source? Is it classifies people who have been killed as Hamas fighters? Now, there's been detailed investigations by the likes of Harats, the Israeli newspaper, which rise on an industrial scale. People who are not Hamas fighters, they're not militants, they're not fighters at all, are classified after being killed as Hamas fighters. What do you think about this case? It's literally the drop site news that we're talking about. Are invented. Now, on the point there, just about the Holocaust scholars, the genocide scholars. The question you will have to ask yourself, surely is this. Surely, surely. If people who are Israeli-Americans, people who are proud Jewish-Israeli-Americans, and Israelis, who dedicate their whole lives to studying the Holocaust and genocide, surely, if they have come to this conclusion, you disagree. But surely, these people, having. This whole body will be 9102. Surely, they must be a good reason why they have arrived at this conclusion. That is what you struggled to engage with. And that's why, with Gaza, I'm not sure if it's destroyed. I'm saying the thing is out on the buildings. I wonder if that's what people vitally feel. Literally, none of this conversation is wrong. We can turn about the clock in the show 15-20 minutes ago. When Owen first read out the definition of genocide according to Geneva, he taught about a deliberate intention. Yes. The conversation ends there. It literally ends there. There is no deliberate intention. Well, I think I would categorize it. Okay, Josh. Josh, I would categorize it as this, which is something that Donald Trump has said publicly, which is, you don't need to blow up an entire apartment block to target one Hamas terrorist. I think what's happened is not that Israel has tried to kill every Palestinian that it can, because it clearly has the military tools to do so if it wish to do that. But I do think they have been unbelievably indiscriminate in their targeting of Hamas suspects. And they have killed a huge amount of civilians in the process of doing that. And we've seen the same pattern in southern Lebanon. And I think that there is, so whether it's deliberate or not, it can be argued more. It can be argued by both sides. I just don't accept that. I don't accept that. I think it's complete bullshit to say. This is the most humane moral army in the world. And one of the reasons I say that, Josh. Well, Josh, Josh, Josh, Josh. Let me finish my point before you respond. One of the reasons I say that with confidence is if the IDF had in all his actions in Gaza being the most moral army in the world, why is it many, many, many months after the supposed ceasefire came into operation? The Benjamin Netanyahu and his government still ban international media from operating freely in Gaza. Why? I don't have particularly strong thoughts that one way they clearly think that it's compelling that security period. Really? You don't think that if you do go to the border, don't you think it's too high heaven? I really don't have a strong feeling on that one with you. I genuinely don't, I genuinely don't, I genuinely don't know. Really? Could it be Josh? Could it be Josh? Could it be Josh? It's an act of order. Could it be? Well, let me give you a thought. Let me give you a thought. Could it be because the IDF actually has committed a number of war crimes. They don't want the world to discover. Could it be that? Could you accept it could be possible? I think it's a ludicrous suggestion. Is it positively ludicrous as it appears? I would encourage you. I've done some show before. If you feel that's strongly about this question, why don't you go, like literally show up on the border and get your film gear camera. You got a huge following. Because I won't be allowed in. Hold up on YouTube. I won't be allowed in. No, no, but here's the thing. You could really care about this because you brought it at the main times. If you care that much, go and expose to the world. Have these realies refuse? Can I just go into Gaza? Go there with the camera. No, no, no, no, no. You don't understand, Josh. Josh. Josh, you don't understand the international media, the international media are still currently banned by Netanyahu and the Israeli government from operating freely in Gaza. They're banned. I wouldn't be allowed in. I could go in with the IDF who could show me what they want me to see. But I couldn't operate freely. Despite the fact, we are nearly a year into a supposed ceasefire. It stinks. It shows to me they have stuff they want to hide. And until they lift that ban, you cannot say, you cannot say, but you cannot say, until that ban is lifted, you cannot say with any confidence that they have been the most moral army in the world. You have no idea, no idea at all, and knows the world because the media can't do their job. And it is shameful and unprecedented. Pears, I'm encouraging you to do the job. Literally show up there on the border. This is what we're doing. I wouldn't be allowed in, Josh. That's the point of ban, don't you get? No, Pears, you're missing the point respectfully because you have a big platform. You can go through on the border and blow it off. Expose that they're not allowing them in there. You'll make a big stink of it. But we know that. You'll get your wish. They admit it. They admit it. This is their official line. What am I exposing? This is their position. It's the official position of the Israeli government. Something to expose. You can make a statement if you care that strongly. Because you seem to care a lot about this issue. I still don't know. I just made it. I've made it on this show every week for the last year. If there's a ceasefire, let international journalists, proper war corresponders go into Gaza and examine the IDF claim to have been the most moral army in the world. And the longer they are banned, the more it stinks. And the more my suspicion grows that they have not been the more moral army in the world. Hypothetically, if you or some of the journalists get in their peers and then it is killed by Hamas because this is after all a terrorist organization unless we forget. Then what? Look, if they're going to get killed, journalist. I'm sorry, I missed you. So hang on. Sorry. Sorry, I didn't hear your question. I was going to get-- The question is peers. If you or some other enterprising journalists manages to get around the nefarious IDF personnel blockade on Gaza and you get inside and then a bunch of journalists are killed by Hamas because let's not forget they are Hamas, they are bloodthirsty terrorists. Then what? Just, can I just respond to-- Well, the most moral army-- hang on going. The most moral army in the world, the IDF claim and your claim, have actually killed more journalists in Gaza than we have seen in recorded-- And a number of these so-called journalists are at a court-recorded alleges of journalists who actually-- I need you to say that. How many? How many? How many of them have-- I'm nervous, but-- Maybe they've never been exposed. They've been-- You've no idea. You've no idea. You've no idea. I don't know exactly exact number. It's over 200. I think it's 240, 240 journalists in Gaza have been killed. And the answer always is, well, they were mostly Hamas. And when I say, well, how many were Hamas? They were. You have no idea. No idea. You've no idea. You've no idea. But it's just-- I don't know. You've no idea. You've no idea. You're point. You know, I do. Because rule correspondents are not allowed to investigate it. Well, let's move on. Owen. Yeah, I'm sorry. So you got into a fascinating debate. Well, we could debate that for the whole show. I don't want to. Owen Jones-- I think he speaks for himself. Lift the ban. Let the journalists do their job. Let's find out if they really were the most moral-alarm in the world in Gaza. I suspect, along with this ban goes on, it answers its own question. But we shall see. History will judge. We'll find out. Now, Owen, you got into a fascinating online debate on ex-with representative Nancy Mace over the weekend. She posted every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse and a threat to both national security and are a public. We refuse to be silent. You reply, "This is a Republican congresswoman. If she spoke like this about Jewish Americans, she would rightly be regarded as a loud and proud Nazi. Islamophobia is sparring other control in the US. She then retorted if not wanting to be blown up, stabbed or ran by a car by a radical islamist in the United States of America makes Islamophobes and so be it." I mean, it wasn't extraordinary strange. She went on CNN and was asked about it. Let's see what she said. Are you saying that anyone who is Muslim is a threat to this country? That's not what I said. Number one, I think we do have a real issue with radicalism. It sounds like that's what you're saying. No, I was talking about elected officials. When you look at what has just happened. So any Muslim elected officials, sorry to cut you off, but just to be clear, any elected Muslim officials? I mean, I've got to say, I mean, I thought that was a reprehensible bigoted comment by Nazi mass. She's been a regular on my show. I was startled to see her say what she said. Every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse and a threat to both national security and our Republic. The cults, this comes on the backdrop of a number of Muslims winning power in America from Mandani to now new candidates like El Say coming through and others. You know, it was just pure, it's an amphibia, where people ask, what is an amphibia? I say, that's what it is. Amen. I didn't actually know she'd responded to me, so thank you for reading out the horrific response. I'd said the Nazi in Paris, and I think there actually are parallels, because if you look at how Jewish people were portrayed in the first half of the 20th century in a mainstream way in Europe, they were portrayed as dangerous violence, aversives, the Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy. That was the whole Nazi stick. The idea was that these were the dangerous Jewish subversives who were trying to destroy Western civilization. Well, now that is what is said by mainstream Republican politicians about Muslims. What we've seen is on Mandani, portrayed as what repeatedly as an Islamist condemned, you know, linked to 9/11, demands that he won't turn up to the commemoration of or to remember those who were killed on the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This use of Islamist, this constant use of Islamist, the only thing is that the Muslim community of or communities of the US are a fifth column, they're traitors, they're dangerous would be extremists, and there's no acceptable way for them to exercise their democratic rights. And I would note, they used to be a solidly pro-Republican-leaning community, 70% of Muslims voted for George W. Bush in the 80,000, I think many of them went on to regret it, but these are, you know, if you go, I've been to Michigan, I've been to Dearborn, you see the same white picket kind of houses, these all of American families taking their kids to school and all the rest of it. These are people who are teachers and doctors and factory workers and work in shops, the backbone part of what is often called middle America, and they have been demonized and attacked in ways, which is getting to the point of being actually genocidal into in tone. I know again, I'm sorry to say this but my guess, but I did my homework and it's important to do your homework, but he is again part of the problem. He said about L. Sighty who got elected that he was an example of America's domestic Islamist problem. He said, "I want to get to America's domestic Islamist problem." He said he's a Muslim, yes, well done, well voted, and he said he has a lot of beliefs. He typically has cried to a Muslim from the state of Michigan. You talk about little Hezbollah and little bay roots around Michigan, calling them subversive people themselves, and you said his victory was in the Islamization of America. I'll just make this clear. That's what you say. He's not a Muslim. He's a Muslim. He is a democratic president. He's a democratic president. He supports LGBTQ rights. How has he in Islamist? What's the evidence he's in Islamist? If you let me speak, Abdul Al-Sahiyah refused to condemn, refused to celebrate, excuse me, the assassination of Ali Khamenei because he said the du-so would be a fending my constituents. He campaigned on his final day in office with Hassan Piker, so that he would vote for Hamas a thousand times out of a thousand over Israel, of course, said that America deserved by the 11th. Among a lot of other things said that he said that Hassan Piker said that Mao Zedan was one of the great leaders of the 20th century. It has been funded by $115,000 of donation money that is tied to two organizations, care of the council of America's law of relations, and Islam society for North America. Not here. Well, what's the evidence he's in Islamist? What is in Islamist? What is in Islamist? What is in Islamist? What is in Islamist? Let me talk. Just say what is in Islamist? It appears, like I actually speak for a second, care was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial in North Texas. The single largest terror financing bus in the history of the United States. It was a direct, a direct funnel of money from the Holy Land Foundation based in the Dallas, Texas suburbs to Hamas. Care was literally named by a federal judge as an unindicted co-conspirator. They were banned subsequently six years later by the UAE as a terrorist organization in the UAE. They are bankrolling up to, let's say, to the $250,000, $150,000 in Germany. How do I say as father-in-law, meant by the name of Tybie, if I have to remember correctly, is a founding member of Islamist, the Islamic side of North America, in North America. Islamist side of North America has long standing ties to the brotherhood, to Hamas, in fact, in fact. The federal judge has actually said that there is a close nexus between how Islamist is not operating. All right, but Josh, let me ask you. All right, so Josh, okay, so Josh, let me ask you this, then. Would you condemn what Nancy may say when she said every single Muslim? Yes. And that's a totally separate conversation. It's a Trojan horse and a threat, but would you condemn what she said? Okay. That's a wholly separate conversation. I do not agree with what Nancy may say, as she said, I don't. I actually had Dr. Judy Jasser on my show in Grand Prix Congress, I'm a big fan of his. I hope that he won his primary in Arizona, he unfortunately lost that primary. There are various other Muslim elected officials who would think are wonderful Americans who are simply amazingly well into American culture. So you would condemn what she said to be clear? I do not agree with how she said it, however, however, is it racist? Would you condemn it? Yeah, I'm not going to condemn it. She missed it. She missed it. She missed it. What she said. I think I stated her, no, I think she didn't miss speech, didn't miss speech. She was very clear. Every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse. I don't agree with that. And a threat to both natural security, but do you condemn it? Sure. I'll play this dumb game. You're a dumb game. No, because there's a much more important point here, the more important point, which the point the Nancy Maes says very, very sloppy getting at, is that Islam and political Islam, AKA Islamism, AKA Sharia Law, is irreconcilable with Western civilization, Western democracy. That is simply the case. That is absolutely true. That is the point. Well, that brings me. Okay. Well, that brings me getting at. Oh, well, she wasn't sloppy. She was very deliberately. I'm not saying that. I'm sorry. A million times over the years. I'm not afraid. No, no. It should be very easy. It should be very easy to condemn what she said as bigoted racist and Islamophobic, because it was. It was. No. But I would say back to you, Owen, that Abdul L Sayed, a victory in the Michigan Democratic primary, has reared other things he said, including this clip of him, where he seems to suggest that trying to ban Sharia law is racist, let's take a look. We're sitting in a space, in a time when I don't have to tell you that the same exact forces that drove native peoples from their land two centuries ago, destroyed Black Wall Street a century ago, bombed a building decades ago, and tried to ban Sharia law not a decade ago, that those forces are alive and well today. Now, do you see the issue with that, Owen? No, I mean, in various Western countries you have Sharia courts, they're just not legally binding, and they shouldn't be legally binding, and no one's suggesting that they should be including him. He doesn't support Sharia law. What happened 10 years ago is Republicans in various states post what they called anti-Sharia laws and bills, which were just introduced purely in order to tap into anti-Muslim prejudice, because there was no Sharia law in any of those states. There was never any Sharia law existing in any states. Those bills were passed purely in order to whip up an anti-Muslim history, and they succeeded, and that was that was that was racist. Yeah, these are pro-electric measures. Muslim immigration to America has increased at a dramatic rate ever since the hard-seller bill in the 1960s. Peter, do you know at this point a recent poll showed that 44% of American Muslims support Tomas and any fair will be of mass? That is a recent poll. There was actually another poll that came out about three weeks after October 7th that showed that 57 and a half give or take percent of American Muslims support what happened on October 7th, 2023. When I grew up in this idyllic white pick offense setting that Owen is describing, I grew up more or less in that setting. I grew up thinking that America was melting pot. A lot people assimilated whether it's whether they are Jews, whether they are Muslims or whatever, and that might have been the case. That is no longer the case. So this point in American immigration, American assimilation is fun. mentally broken. And at this point, the second and third generation of American Muslims are simply not assimilating into America's broader civic culture, the way that a previous generation was. That is why, again, to drive this point on 44% of American Muslims have a favorable view or outright supportive of Hamas. That is a, that is a U.S. recognized foreign terrorist organization for the past three decades. It is not on that. It is absolutely not. You're not in any position. I haven't seen that polling, and I'd be very, I'd be interested to see that polling say the least. You're not in any position to condemn anyone else for extremism when you call to large ways of Gaza to resemble a parking lot, when you call for the, and it's the cleansing of Gaza. And you just cry at the first time of the population of Gaza as deserving scorn and shame. You're not in a position to dictate it to talk about. What happened with America? What happened in America's society is increasingly people what yourself are now seen as extremists. Polling in America shows that people regard what Israel has done as being a monster's cry. More America's not think it's genocide. And what you have to now face is people think you are an extremist. They think people with your view who supported the wiping out of Gaza from the face, the earth, which is a much bigger crime than anything I've asked it. And most figures are more aware of what's happening in my own country. You are a guy. It's my country now yours but increasingly as an extremist. And I don't think you in any position to condemn an entire group within American society and try to, in a prejudiced way, and suggest that they support violent extremism when you literally support one of the worst acts of violence in the 20th century. Let me ask you. Hang on. Let me ask you a question. Do you support Sharia law? No, I don't support Sharia law. What an old question. Why should it be tolerated out of interest in a country like the United States? Sharia law has never existed. It's never been illegal. You never had Sharia law. The bills were passed in order to whip up a moral panic in the United States around 2011, 2011, 2012, 2013. And the reason they were pushed by the time the Tea Party type Republicans was to whip up a moral panic about a non-existent issue. That was the problem. And that's what they did. But there are now in the UK alone. There are now between 1800 unofficial Sharia law courts. They're not leaking. You're a high profile gay man. And as you know, Sharia law, specifically amongst many things, prohibits same sexual acts. What do you feel about that? Again, Piss, you're a brain times and guy. And you know perfectly well that the claims of Sharia law existing in Britain in any legally enforced way at all is non-existent. There is no Sharia law. You have Sharia courts, but you also have other communities that you have again within communities, for example, you have a Jewish police kind of force within North London. It doesn't have legal powers on the same level as the police. It's a community patrolling organisation which doesn't have those legal powers. Sharia courts which manage, for example, family disputes and other such matters. That's what they actually do in practice in Britain. They're not enforcing anti-gay laws. That doesn't exist in Britain. And you know, I speak to queer Muslims, which I think is quite important to do because they're a raise from the conversation. And they feel, often, deeply frustrated, that in a country where anti-Muslim prejudice in bigotry has got worse and worse and worse, is that that their kind of plight, if you like, or their position is weaponised not by people who want to advance LGBTQ rights, but people who want to demonise Muslims as a whole. And obviously, I want queer Muslims to be able to come out and be their true selves. Of course, I support that. I want anyone who's LGBTQ to come out and be their true selves. But there's no Sharia law in Britain. Oh, John, I mean, gay people. Oh, and should walk into Gaza. He should walk into Gaza. How would I say, I say, I am a gay man. How would I say, I am a gay man. See, I are treated. I've been, I've been to the West. I've been to the West. I've been murdered. I think you will get murdered by the very people that you are on this show and it really wrote a whole book defending. Just, just, just on that, just on that. I support the Palestinian people and I support their right to exist. You want to kill you. That doesn't mean what the Palestinian people tell you. This is the problem. You know that, right? We're going back. We're going back, we're going back again to the genocidal mentality you have because you have a view of the Palestinian people. The genocidal mentality of the, of the, of the, of the homeless of the motherland to L.D.K. in the Palestinians in, in Gaza is the same as what's happened to Strait Palestinians. L.D.B. is the people in Gaza have been blown up by Israeli missiles. The homes have been destroyed. Their, their relatives have been killed. They have been deprived of medical care. They have been reduced living intense and and they have been starved. That's what's happened to LGBT people. And what is in the early end? And the only thing that you should be seeing is they are so angry about the fact that if you speak to a queer Palestinian, you will hear their fury that they are being used to pink, which is a genocide for your Palestinian Arabs in this world. What happens to LGBTQ Palestinians is not in any way a justification for wiping out an entire territory. And it is a fantasy to say, we've already been to QP for just a couple of whys and guards are from the face of the earth. I'm going to read that there was not all advanced LGBTQ rights. It's not doing this. Do you think this is about LGBTQ rights? What's happened to Gaza? Do you think that? I didn't even hear your dumb question, was it? I said, do you think that Gaza being wiped off the face of the earth has been done to advance the cause of LGBTQ Palestinians? Is that what you believe? Do you believe that? Okay, Gaza has not been wiped off 85% of the earth. 85% of his builders, first starters, 85%. Second of all, I don't particularly care because the goal of the operation, Gaza is to eliminate Hamas. Whatever happens to the court and court will immediately cause. It's not their fear for a Palestinian. So why do LGBTQ people, if you don't care about this? Because you don't care about us. You don't care about us. I don't care about LGBTQ Palestinians. But what's offensive of you? And it's a little weird. It's a little weird. I know the idea that you are a billionaire. I know I do. They will say, but the main issue is the Israel genocide and Israel's illegal occupation. I've been to the West Bank, by the way, as an openly gay man. I've gone around the West Bank as a gay person. I've met gay Palestinians in the West Bank in Palestinian cities. I might add. You should go away. You should go away. You should go away. You should go away. And I speak to Palestinians in Gaza every single day. By the way, every single day, they're well aware that I'm gay. They're well aware that I'm gay. They were well aware that I'm gay. Right, she's moved away from it. A woman is. Simple question. A woman is a female? Was that me? A female, so a biological female. It's yes, also when he transitions. OK. also when he transitions. also when he transitions to being a woman. Also, what, sorry? Also, people who transition to being women should be accepted as women. As people who transition to being men. Right, so would be accepted as men. So would you allow trans athletes to play in women's sport? Yes, but, again, with these issues. there was what I think, for example, one suggestion. was you can do it by, for example, by weight. Or you can do it by testosterone levels. By weight? Yes. Surely Owen. Owen, Owen, Owen. Let me educate you about biology and physiology. OK, here we go. Clearly, it's taken you a few years and you haven't quite got with the programme. When you are a biological male, you have immediately superior body mass, lung capacity, things like that. It makes you stronger and faster and more powerful than biological females. That is why, even if you transition, you maintain as Caitlin Jenner. Well, no, this study is openly about it. The study shows that you maintain a superior physiology. So my question for you is, by your yardstick, then, if you would allow trans women to appear in women's sport, would you then make the Olympics gender neutral? Because it's the same thing. So would you allow the Olympics and say the World Cup all to be gender neutral? There's just. I think on this, firstly, people. Again, there's been several studies I've shown when people transition, that actually those advantages go, actually. But I think the other point is. No, completely untrue. I'm sorry, you've just lied. I didn't lie. You just lied. You just lied. There is no. Oh, and there is zero scientific study. Where were all these trans women? Where were all these women's sports? Where were all these bad success? I mean, there was barely anything. Let me explain to you. The United Nations. If I may, the United Nations said that, I think, in 2024, nearly a thousand medals at all levels of women's sport were won by trans athletes. How many?. and how many?. and how many?. and girls of winning. Well, it doesn't matter, does it? Well, it does because the argument there would be, is that a trans woman would never, ever, ever be able to win any. Oh, ever, Owen. Owen. But your argument, if it makes no difference, if it makes no difference, would you allow the Olympics to be gender neutral? No, but again, I mean, with the issue of transport. Why? Why wouldn't you? Because we're talking. Why wouldn't you? Because we're talking about such a small, tiny, tiny, tiny number of trans athletes. No, we're not. Yes, we are. We are. I just never saw this idea. That sport. If you weren't on my transit. So you were just to be clear then, just to be clear, so just to be clear, you wouldn't want the Olympics to be gender neutral, even though you believe there is no advantage to being a. I didn't say there was every advantage. I just said people who transitioned, that those advantages were eroded, and there wasn't actually. They are not eroded. It was actually very. It was not eroded. There was very few. Any basic, any scientist or doctor. Any scientist or doctor. Any doctor or scientist will tell you that reducing testosterone has zero impact on body mass, lung capacity and the other advantages were being a biological male have over being a biological female. Well, again, there were two studies. I can't quote them, unfortunately. I was going to try to look them up, but unfortunately this is. There's no reception here. There were two studies which. And by all means, publish your studies. Of the biological advantage, but I. Say it again, sorry. But I. No, but by all means, publish your own science about it. What do you mean? Sorry, I got. Sorry, we're speaking over each other. Sorry, okay, say that again. Well, I think the bottom line. Let me come to Josh to get involved. Josh, the bottom line for me is. If you genuinely believe there is no unfair advantage to biological males who transition, competing in women's sport, then it follows day facto that you ought to argue that all sports should be gender neutral, because the biology makes no difference. And yet the specific reason we separate the sexes in things like the Olympics and the World Cup and other major events in sport generally is because it is scientifically proven as an undebatable fact that biological males have a physical advantage over biological females. Yeah, here's the only thing that I just learned from this highly unaluminating exchange with mental happier in yourself is that my interlocutor is not just intellectually corrupting companies. He's also just mentally morally incompetent. I mean, there are more problems here in the METI. So in the last Olympics in 2024 in Paris, during the boxing tournament actually, there was a biological female who had. I believe it was a cranial fracture. It was a very severe injury during the Olympic competition from a biological male, which is actually why the IOC has come out and said that they're going to enforce a chromosomal policy, like an actual biological policy, XX or XY chromosome, in advance of the Olympics to in 2028 in Los Angeles. I also note here at the US Supreme Court, we just had a case on this. We had a case involving transgender athleticism back towards the end of the term that just ended in June. It was a 9-0 case. It was a 9-0 case that in this case, Idaho and West Virginia are not discriminating when they ban "transgender women" aka biological males from competing against biological women in athletic competition. That position was supported by the two most liberal justes on the court, Sonya Somiore, and Katajman Jackson, the latter of whom, just as Jackson, infamously at her own sent judiciary committee confirmation hearing for the courts in March 2022, when pressed on this by Marsha Blackburn Tennessee, infamously refused to say what is women, much like Owen Jones. And yet, even she said, even she said that it is totally fair to set grade, quote unquote, "set grade," I guess, based on biological sex and chromosomal structure. This is an open-shot issue. It's an issue that the left, by the way, has completely been losing on an America, quite badly. It's not exactly, anyone's probably number one voting issue, it's not the economy or anything. But it's a massive albatross around the neck for the Democratic Party, for the left, which is probably why even AOC yourself is taking at least some measures to diss himself from that political toxic. Yeah, and you know, the bottom line I know in, the bottom line I know in is that, as I've always said, I want trans people to have exactly the same rights to fairness, equality, and safety that you and I enjoy. I absolutely do, and I really feel for the trans community about how they get exposed to so much mockery by people who promote this fast of trans athletes in women's sport. Last week, I interviewed Martin and I rattled over, who was so powerful about this. She said that at the peak of her tennis powers, she wouldn't have beaten the top 500 men in tennis. Probably more. I think Serena Williams has said 800, right? There's no comparison between the physiology of these athletes at any level of sport. When I hear people on the progressive, where people on the progressive left try and argue this point. Most of America and most of Britain think you're completely nuts. Why not just say there is an advantage, it is unfair. I want trans athletes to compete in sport, but not against biological females, because that is as unfair as if they were doping. Because you know, Owen, and I know, and Josh knows, and we should all agree here, that is the reality. I think the issue that I generally have with this whole so-called, quite tourneyed conversation debate, which we've had now for several years about trans people and their existence, is it doesn't start from the basis of, how do we, how do we accept inclusion and work backwards from that? You know, if people who have made these arguments had started from a position of, we want trans people to be included, not, I mean, athletics, again, or whatever, it's top it we have to be talking about. And because, you know, the vast majority of trans people are not athletics. Are not athletes that we're talking about 0.5% of a very, very small minority as is. It's not part of people's everyday experience. If people have started from that basis, then we could have had a rational conversation, but that's not what happened. I think that's why people who just prefer trans people not to exist, and they wanted to just find-- But I don't. I know, I'm saying-- I'm saying this conversation by the likes of Donald Trump and the people associated with him when they issue direct-- What about me? For example, banning families people from military and all the rest of it. Now, I'm saying, but you're not running-- I'm talking about the United States, the people who've won the Superbowel of the United States. And the problem is, don't believe-- You're talking to me now. I find trans people it is. And I say to you-- When I say to you, it's unsafe. They're fighting to leave their home. They can't use public toilets. They're scared to use a public toilet. They face physical abuse. They face verbal abuse. They face discrimination in the workplace. And I just think the problem is the whole atmosphere in tenet of this conversation, which is focusing on, which is what happened. This is what might be gay people in the '80s and '90s, because it's always the focus on extreme, basically, marginal examples. But marching in and a battle over is a gay woman. A gay woman. A whole community as being a problem. So, you're talking to that rental over as a gay woman. No, I know that. This has nothing to do with sexuality. I know there's one that's very scary. And there's some gay people who-- I'm not accusing her of this. So, actually, he spoke about trans people and much like gay people. He spoke about the '80s and '90s. which I think is unfortunate. I just think it has to be on the basis of how do we maximize inclusion in society of every possible minority? And for trans people, I think it'd be very simple. - It's very simple, I mean. - What is your solution? - I mean, it's very simple. Trans athletes either compete against their biological sex, so if you're a trans woman, you would carry on, as most of them have done, by the way, previously, you would carry on competing against other biological families, which is your physiology? - Which trans women were competing? Honestly, I'm asking you a genuine question here, 'cause I don't know the answer to this. - Which one, sorry? - I'm asking you a question, as I don't know the answer to what I'm about to ask you. Which trans women as trans women were competing against men? I don't know which athletes you mean. - It's everywhere. It's literally everywhere in the United States. - The swimmer, the swimmer, the swimmer Lee Atomas became one of the most successful swimmers in America. - No, I didn't ask you. That's all the question. - That's not the question. - What's the question? - You said that trans women were competing against men, biological men. So I'm asking which trans women - No, no, no, no, no, you asked me. You asked me, no, no, no, no, no, you misheard me. They should. In other words, if you want to make trans athletes. - No, they said they were. - They said they were. - They said they used to be. - No. - No, no, I said that. I said almost all of the trans athletes that I've seen reported on used to compete as men against other men. When they transitioned, they then compete against women. The common denominator in is they are massively more successful as trans women competing against biological females than they ever wore. Well, why are you shaking your head? - No, because they've been very few, actually, trans women athletes who have actually, for example, I mean, has any of them won a gold medal at the Olympics? Like, not none of them have. We've been a silver medal. - Well, what would you do? Why do you think you know more than Kate Lingenna, who won a Olympic gold as a male. - Well, I don't support Kate Lingenna. - And now says to anyone who listens that if she was to compete against women, biological females, she would destroy them. Why would you know more than her? - I mean, Kate Lingenna, look. I'm not on the same page as Kate Lingenna a lot of things. She's a pro-Trumper publican. So just generally, obviously lots of other trans. - So? - Because I don't think she represents the consensus of what trans people would say. - Why do you know more than Martin and Eretel over? - I've not claimed to. I'm just saying, the very, very few trans athletes who actually do competes for stop. And this has been an issue which is affecting what 0.5% of trans people, which has been used to treat trans people as a whole as a problem. Because all we've had to focus on is trans people. - Unfortunately, that argument. - Okay, but that argument. - Yeah, that argument doesn't work with people like me, though, because I'm somebody who doesn't. - I see that, I see that. - Move on. - No, but I ask you. - You made it clear. - No, but you never talk about. - You think it's fair. - Can I ask you to take his answer? - Can I ask you just one thing to you? Because you do actually do a range of. You talk about a range of topics in this program, and I do really appreciate that. But could you not do more on the experiences of trans people who face abuse in the street, who feel scared even to use. - Yeah, but you know, he's my biggest problem. - My biggest problem is. - Owen, Owen. - Let me answer. My biggest problem with so-called trans allies like yourself is that by perpetuating the myth that there is no unfair advantage for trans athletes in women's sport, you are directly amplifying the mockery that then comes trans people's way. And actually, it would help the trans community enormously. If people like you said, you know what? I got this wrong. Actually, there is an unfair advantage. - But that's. - To make trans athletes inclusive in sport. And here's my answer. - That's not why trans people can be against that biological. Hang on, they either compete against that biological sex or they compete in a new category. And that is the way to get through this. But as long as you try and tell us that black is white or white is black and there's no advantage, no chromosomal advantage, then I'm afraid you will continue to be part of the mockery that goes trans people's way. That's incredibly unfortunate. I mean, it's not an issue. By the way, it's not even. It's this idea that I've been standing for the rooftops to talking about this as an issue. What I've been talking about is trans people should be accepted at a time when hate crimes against trans people have escalated when they're being facing discrimination. - They should not be being accepted. - And now it should be given the same rights. - And now in Britain, there's an effort to boundary. - They should be given the same rights. - There's an effort to boundary. - All right, I'm going to end it by saying this. They should be just to be clear, trans people should get exactly the same rights as you and me, but not at the expense of eroding women's rights to equality, to fairness and safety. And that's my final thought on it. You don't agree, and that's fine. But that's what it boils down to. Thank you both very much for very interesting debate. I appreciate it. - Thank you, Jason. - Here's what we're going to sense that is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. You enjoy our show and also only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.