I had a conversation with ChatGPT. Read it HERE.

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

I have long warned about the dangers AI poses to our freedoms, jobs, and way of life. This week, I decided to ask AI itself whether it is conscious of the threats it poses to the American people. I asked ChatGPT pointed questions about freedom, privacy, and a new era of eugenics. The results are both staggering and frightening.

Below you will find my FULL conversation with ChatGPT. My questions are in bolded text and ChatGPT's responses are italicized.

How much will you advance in 12 months?

1. Enhanced natural language understanding: AI models like GPT-4 will continue to improve, providing even more accurate and contextually relevant responses.

2. Improved healthcare diagnostics: AI could be used to quickly and accurately diagnose diseases or analyze medical imagery, potentially saving lives.

3. Enhanced cybersecurity: AI may be used to detect and respond to cyber threats more effectively, protecting sensitive data and digital infrastructure.

In 2 years?

1. Autonomous vehicles: Widespread adoption of self-driving cars could lead to reduced traffic congestion and increased road safety.

2. AI-assisted education: Personalized AI tutors could help students learn more effectively and at their own pace.

3. AI-generated content: AI-generated art, music, and literature could become more prevalent, changing the creative landscape.

In 10 years?

1. AI-enhanced human cognition: Brain-computer interfaces could allow people to access AI-enhanced cognitive abilities, revolutionizing learning and problem-solving.

2. AI-driven scientific discovery: AI could help solve complex scientific problems, leading to major breakthroughs in fields like medicine, climate change, and space exploration.

3. General AI: Development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) could lead to machines that can perform any intellectual task that a human can do, revolutionizing society.

What positive implications will you bring to the average American?

1. Increased productivity: AI can automate repetitive tasks, allowing people to focus on more creative and strategic work.

2. Improved quality of life: AI-driven advancements in healthcare, transportation, and education could lead to better health outcomes and overall well-being.

3. Access to information: AI-powered search and recommendation systems can help people find relevant information more efficiently.

What negative implications will you bring to the average American?

1. Job displacement: Automation could lead to job loss in certain industries, requiring workers to retrain for new careers.

2. Privacy concerns: The growing reliance on AI and data collection could lead to increased surveillance and diminished personal privacy.

3. AI bias and discrimination: AI systems can perpetuate existing biases and discrimination if not designed and monitored carefully.

What potential negative societal outcomes do you pose to us?

1. Economic inequality: The benefits of AI could disproportionately favor those with access to technology and resources, widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

2. AI arms race: Countries could compete to develop increasingly advanced AI technologies, potentially leading to destabilizing geopolitical tensions.

3. Loss of control: If AGI is achieved, there's a risk that we could lose control over these systems, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Efforts like OpenAI's mission to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity are important in mitigating this risk.

Our society is once again headed toward many of the ideas of the early progressive eugenicists: the devaluing of life, or life not worthy of care or medicine. Can you point out any warning signs that may have been missed by the speciests of the past that have ended in mass death?

While the question suggests that society is headed towards ideas associated with early eugenics, it's important to acknowledge that the current context is different. Nevertheless, historical instances can provide lessons on the potential consequences of devaluing human life. Here are some warning signs from past episodes that have led to mass death or suffering:

1. Dehumanization and discrimination: When certain groups are labeled as inferior or undesirable, it can pave the way for mistreatment or neglect. For example, the Holocaust was enabled by the dehumanization and persecution of Jews, along with other minority groups.

2. Authoritarianism: Authoritarian regimes have often been responsible for mass deaths, as they seek to suppress dissent and impose their ideology on the population. Examples include the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, and Cambodia under Pol Pot.

3. Propaganda and misinformation: Manipulating information and controlling narratives can lead to widespread acceptance of harmful ideas, such as eugenics. In Nazi Germany, propaganda played a significant role in promoting the idea of Aryan superiority and the elimination of other groups.

4. Lack of empathy and compassion: Ignoring the suffering of others can lead to indifference or even active support for policies that harm vulnerable populations. For example, public apathy or support for the forced sterilization of individuals deemed "unfit" in the early 20th century United States is a warning sign of how societal attitudes can contribute to mistreatment.

5. Unchecked scientific or technological advancements: Scientific and technological progress can be misused when it lacks ethical considerations or when it is applied without proper oversight. For instance, eugenic practices like forced sterilization were enabled by advancements in medical science, which were used to justify harmful policies.

6. Suppression of dissent and free speech: When dissenting voices are silenced or dismissed, it becomes easier for harmful ideologies to take hold. In many cases, individuals who tried to expose the atrocities were persecuted or ignored.

To prevent history from repeating itself, it is crucial to remain vigilant against these warning signs, promoting empathy, compassion, and open dialogue. Additionally, as AI becomes more integrated into our society, it is important to ensure that these technologies are designed and used ethically, with respect for human rights and dignity.

Why do you say that we are living in a different time from the eugenicists of the past? Point number 6 is happening more and more every day while point number 5 is already happening with gender transition surgeries. 

You raise valid concerns about the current state of society and potential parallels to the warning signs I mentioned earlier. It's important to recognize that there are indeed similarities between the past and present, and the warning signs discussed are not exclusive to any specific time or context. My intention was not to dismiss these concerns but rather to emphasize that historical instances can provide valuable lessons for the present. Addressing your points:

1. Suppression of dissent and free speech (Point 6): It is concerning when free speech is restricted, and it's essential to uphold the constitutional rights of all individuals. The challenges posed by social media platforms and government intervention are complex and require a thoughtful, balanced approach to protect free speech while preventing harmful content.

2. Unchecked scientific or technological advancements (Point 5): The use of transitioning therapies for young children is indeed a contentious issue, and it's crucial to have open, evidence-based discussions about the potential risks and benefits. The differing approaches across countries demonstrate the importance of considering cultural, ethical, and scientific factors when making decisions about medical practices.

3. Dehumanization and discrimination: The demonization of the 'other side' and the opinions of healthcare professionals regarding treatment for unvaccinated individuals are concerning. It's essential to maintain empathy and compassion in our interactions and avoid dehumanizing those with different beliefs or choices.

4. Propaganda and misinformation: The impact of social media on the spread of misinformation and the polarization of society is a significant challenge. As you pointed out, cancel culture and the pressure to conform to specific ideologies can exacerbate divisions and stifle open dialogue.

While there are similarities between the present and the warning signs from the past, it's crucial to remain vigilant and work collectively to address these issues. By encouraging open dialogue, promoting empathy, and upholding the values of a democratic society, we can help to mitigate the risks associated with these warning signs.

Make the case that freedom of speech must include abhorrent speech. Disruptive speech is critical for growth

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies and is essential for fostering open dialogue, intellectual growth, and social progress. The argument for including abhorrent or disruptive speech can be made on several grounds:

1. Marketplace of ideas: A foundational principle of free speech is that truth emerges from the competition of ideas in a free, transparent, and open discourse. Allowing even abhorrent or disruptive speech ensures that the best ideas can rise to the surface and be scrutinized, debated, and refined.

2. Defense against tyranny: Freedom of speech protects citizens from authoritarianism by allowing them to voice dissenting opinions and challenge government actions. By permitting a wide range of speech, society ensures that the powerful are held accountable and that alternative viewpoints have an opportunity to be heard.

3. Personal autonomy: Free speech is an expression of individual autonomy and self-expression, which are essential for personal growth and fulfillment. Allowing even offensive speech respects each person's right to express their thoughts and beliefs, fostering a diverse and tolerant society.

4. Strengthening social resilience: Exposure to a variety of ideas, including those that are controversial or offensive, can help individuals develop critical thinking skills and resilience. By engaging with challenging viewpoints, people can better understand and defend their own beliefs or reevaluate them when necessary.

5. Avoiding the slippery slope: Strict limits on speech can lead to a slippery slope where the definition of what is considered "unacceptable" can be manipulated by those in power. This can result in arbitrary restrictions, with the potential to silence legitimate dissent and minority voices.

Most democratic societies recognize that there are limits to free speech. These limits generally focus on preventing direct harm, such as incitement to violence, threats, defamation, and harassment. Balancing free speech with these concerns can be challenging and requires ongoing evaluation and debate.

According to American founding documents, "Governments are instituted among men to protect rights." Are they not now violating our most basic rights by reading our Twitter DM’s, monitoring speech, and instructing social media to silence those voices they deem as "mis" or "dis" information?

The public-private partnership between high-tech companies and the government can pose risks to free speech if not carefully managed. Here's a case for building a wall between tech and government to protect the fundamental right to free expression:

1. Concentration of power: When tech companies and governments collaborate, it can result in a concentration of power that undermines the checks and balances necessary for a healthy democracy. By keeping a separation between tech companies and the government, it becomes more difficult for any single entity to control the flow of information or suppress dissenting voices.

2. Protection of privacy: Privacy is a fundamental human right and is closely related to free speech. Ensuring that tech companies are independent of government influence can help protect user data from unwarranted surveillance or misuse.

3. Encouraging innovation: A competitive and independent tech sector can foster innovation by allowing a diversity of companies and platforms to thrive. This promotes a robust marketplace of ideas, which is essential for free speech.

4. Avoiding conflicts of interest: A clear separation between tech companies and the government helps avoid conflicts of interest that could compromise the integrity of both parties. This separation ensures that decisions regarding content moderation, user privacy, and other issues are made independently and not influenced by political considerations.

5. Preserving the role of the citizenry: The government should not be the final arbiter of truth, as it could undermine the role of citizens in questioning authority and exposing corruption. Allowing for a diversity of voices and maintaining the right to demand answers and redress from the government are essential to a functioning democracy.

In summary, building a wall between tech companies and the government can help preserve free speech, privacy, and democratic values by preventing the concentration of power, protecting user data, encouraging innovation, and maintaining the role of citizens in questioning authority. However, finding the right balance between separation and cooperation is essential for addressing the complex challenges facing modern societies.

The Declaration of Independence states, "When a government becomes hostile to those rights, it is the right and the duty to shake off those chains and replace that government with new stewards that are more likely to protect those rights." How can that be done or addressed without calling for revolution or violence?

The Declaration of Independence indeed emphasizes the importance of protecting individual rights and the duty of the citizenry to address government overreach. It is possible to advocate for change and uphold civil rights without resorting to revolution or violence. Here's a case for advocating change in a non-violent and constructive manner:

1. Participatory democracy: Engage in the democratic process by voting, running for office, or supporting candidates who align with your values and prioritize the protection of individual rights. Encourage others to participate as well, ensuring that the government is held accountable by the people it represents.

2. Peaceful protest and assembly: Exercise your right to peaceful protest and assembly as a means to raise awareness and demonstrate your commitment to protecting civil rights. Peaceful protest can be a powerful tool to bring attention to issues and mobilize support for change.

3. Dialogue and debate: Engage in open and respectful dialogue with those who hold opposing views, fostering understanding and cooperation. Encourage the exchange of ideas and perspectives to promote thoughtful discussion and challenge the status quo.

4. Civil society organizations: Support or join civil society organizations that work to uphold and protect civil rights. These organizations often serve as watchdogs, advocating for policy changes, holding the government accountable, and providing resources for individuals to learn about and assert their rights.

5. Education and awareness: Educate yourself and others about the principles of democracy, the importance of individual rights, and the mechanisms available to citizens to challenge government overreach. Encourage critical thinking and civic education to foster an informed and engaged citizenry.

6. Legal action: Utilize the legal system to challenge unconstitutional actions by the government, seeking remedies through the courts. Support or join organizations that provide legal assistance and advocacy for civil rights issues.

By advocating for change through these non-violent and constructive means, citizens can work to address government overreach and protect individual rights without resorting to revolution or violence. It is essential to emphasize that advocating for civil rights and holding the government accountable is not inherently anti-American or anti-government; instead, it is a fundamental part of a healthy, thriving democracy.

Many Americans are convinced they do not have the power to change things. Is that true? How important is the singular voice? Bad guys don’t ever seem to have to pay for the crimes. There doesn’t seem to be any institution that can be trusted.

It is not true that individuals lack the power to change things. Although it can be challenging, the singular voice can have a significant impact, especially when combined with the voices of others. There are numerous examples in American history where ordinary individuals have made a real difference in society:

1. Rosa Parks: Parks, an African American seamstress, refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955. Her act of defiance sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which played a significant role in the civil rights movement.

2. Darryl Hunt: Hunt, a wrongfully convicted man who spent nearly 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, became an advocate for criminal justice reform and the wrongfully accused after his exoneration. His story helped raise awareness of the flaws in the criminal justice system and inspired others to join the fight for reform.

3. Erin Brockovich: As a legal clerk, Brockovich helped expose a case of industrial pollution in California that led to a landmark class-action lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric. Her efforts brought attention to environmental issues and corporate malfeasance, inspiring others to advocate for environmental justice.

4. Candy Lightner: Lightner, whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver, founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in 1980. MADD has since become a powerful advocacy group that has successfully lobbied for stricter drunk driving laws and increased public awareness about the dangers of drunk driving.

To continue fighting for civil rights without getting discouraged, consider the following approaches:

1. Focus on small victories: Acknowledge and celebrate incremental progress, even if the ultimate goal seems far off. Small victories can be stepping stones to larger change and can help maintain motivation.

2. Build a support network: Connect with like-minded individuals and organizations that share your passion for civil rights. A support network can provide encouragement, resources, and camaraderie, making it easier to stay committed to the cause.

3. Educate and empower others: Share your knowledge and experiences with others, inspiring them to join the fight for civil rights. Encourage civic education and critical thinking, fostering an informed and engaged citizenry.

4. Be persistent and patient: Change often takes time, and setbacks are inevitable. Stay committed to your goals, even when progress is slow or difficult.

5. Practice self-care: Advocacy can be emotionally and physically draining. Take care of your mental and physical well-being to ensure you have the energy and resilience to continue fighting for civil rights.

Remember, every individual has the power to make a difference. By staying committed, building support networks, and celebrating small victories, you can continue to fight for civil rights without getting discouraged.

Isn’t almost everything in today's high-tech world gathering information, even if we give it all the best intentions? How can one preach privacy as a basic right while high-tech and government gather information that is specific and identifiable?

1. Comprehensive privacy legislation: Governments can enact comprehensive privacy laws that establish clear guidelines on data collection, storage, and use, with strong enforcement mechanisms. These laws should include provisions that give individuals the right to access their data, request its deletion, and opt-out of certain types of data collection.

2. Privacy by design: Encourage and require companies to adopt a "privacy by design" approach in the development of their products and services. This means considering privacy from the outset, implementing strong security measures, and minimizing data collection to what is necessary for the service to function effectively.

3. Data minimization: Encourage companies to collect and store only the data necessary for their services, and to delete it when it is no longer needed. This limits the potential for abuse and helps protect individual privacy.

4. Transparency and control: Companies should be transparent about their data collection practices and provide users with clear, easy-to-understand information about how their data is being used. Users should also be given meaningful control over their data, including options to opt-out of certain types of data collection and the ability to access and delete their data.

5.Security measures: Companies and governments should implement robust security measures to protect the data they collect and store, reducing the risk of unauthorized access or breaches.

6. Public awareness and digital literacy: Promote public awareness of privacy issues and digital literacy, helping individuals understand the implications of sharing their data and empowering them to make informed decisions about their privacy.

7. International cooperation: Encourage international cooperation on privacy issues, ensuring that global standards are consistent and that data protection is maintained across borders.

By taking these steps, it is possible to strike a balance between the benefits of technology and the protection of individual privacy. While it may be challenging to achieve complete privacy in today's high-tech world, promoting strong privacy protections and giving individuals control over their data can help protect this fundamental right.

5 most HORRIFIC practices condoned by WPATH

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Whatever you know about the "trans movement" is only the tip of the iceberg.

In a recent Glenn TV special, Glenn delved into Michael Schellenberger's "WPATH files," a collection of leaked internal communications from within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Glenn's research team got their hands on the WPATH files and compiled the highlights in Glenn's exclusive PDF guide which can be downloaded here. These documents reveal the appalling "standards" created and upheld by WPATH, which appear to be designed to allow radical progressive surgeons to perform bizarre, experimental, and mutilating surgeries on the dime of insurance companies rather than to protect the health and well-being of their patients. These disturbing procedures are justified in the name of "gender-affirming care" and are defended zealously as "life-saving" by the dogmatic surgeons who perform them.

The communications leaked by Schellenberger reveal one horrific procedure after another committed in the name of and defended by radical gender ideology and WPATH fanatics. Here are five of the most horrifying practices condoned by WPATH members:

1.Trans surgeries on minors as young as 14

One particular conversation was initiated by a doctor asking for advice on performing irreversible male-to-female surgery on a 14-year-old boy's genitals. WPATH doctors chimed in encouraging the surgery. One doctor, Dr. McGinn, confessed that he had performed 20 such surgeries on minors over the last 17 years!

2.Amputation of healthy, normal limbs

BIID, or Body Integrity Identity Disorder, is an “extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis.” As you might suspect, some WPATH members are in favor of enabling this destructive behavior. One WPATH commenter suggested that people suffering from BIID received "hostile" treatment from the medical community, many of whom would recommend psychiatric care over amputation. Apparently, telling people not to chop off perfectly healthy limbs is now considered "violence."

3.Trans surgeries on patients with severe mental illnesses

WPATH claims to operate off of a principle known as "informed consent," which requires doctors to inform patients of the risks associated with a procedure. It also requires patients be in a clear state of mind to comprehend those risks. However, this rule is taken very lightly among many WPATH members. When one of the so-called "gender experts" asked about the ethicality of giving hormones to a patient already diagnosed with several major mental illnesses, they were met with a tidal wave of backlash from their "enlightened" colleges.

4.Non-standard procedures, such as “nullification” and other experimental, abominable surgeries

If you have never heard of "nullification" until now, consider yourself lucky. Nullification is the removal of all genitals, intending to create a sort of genderless person, or a eunuch. But that's just the beginning. Some WPATH doctors admitted in these chatlogs that they weren't afraid to get... creative. They seemed willing to create "custom" genitals for these people that combine elements of the two natural options.

5.Experimental, untested, un-researched, use of carcinogenic drugs 

Finasteride is a drug used to treat BPH, a prostate condition, and is known to increase the risk of high-grade prostate cancer as well as breast cancer. Why is this relevant? When a WPATH doctor asked if anyone had used Finasteride "to prevent bottom growth," which refers to the healthy development of genitals during puberty. The answer from the community was, "That's a neat idea, someone should give it a go."

If your state isn’t on this list, it begs the question... why?

The 2020 election exposed a wide range of questionable practices, much of which Glenn covered in a recent TV special. A particularly sinister practice is the use of private money to fund the election. This money came from a slew of partisan private sources, including Mark Zuckerberg, entailed a host of caveats and conditions and were targeted at big city election offices— predominantly democratic areas. The intention is clear: this private money was being used to target Democrat voters and to facilitate their election process over their Republican counterparts.

The use of private funds poses a major flaw in the integrity of our election, one which many states recognized and corrected after the 2020 election. This begs the question: why haven't all states banned private funding in elections? Why do they need private funding? Why don't they care about the strings attached?

Below is the list of all 28 states that have banned private funding in elections. If you don't see your state on this list, it's time to call your state's election board and demand reform.

Alabama

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Arizona

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Arkansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Florida

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Georgia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Idaho

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Indiana

Photo 12 / Contributor

Iowa

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kentucky

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Louisiana

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Mississippi

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Missouri

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Montana

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Nebraska

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

North Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

North Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Ohio

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Oklahoma

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Pennsylvania

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Tennessee

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Texas

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Utah

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Virginia

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

West Virginia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Wisconsin

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked? 

School today is not like it used to be...

Glenn recently covered how our medical schools have been taken over by gender-affirming, anti-racist, woke garbage, and unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Education at all levels has been compromised by progressive ideology. From high-level university academics to grade school, American children are constantly being bombarded by the latest backward propaganda from the left. Luckily, in the age of Zoom classes and smartphones, it's harder for teachers to get away their agenda in secret. Here are five videos that show just how corrupt schools really are:

Woke teacher vandalizes pro-life display

Professor Shellyne Rodriguez, an art professor at Hunter College in New York, was caught on camera having a violent argument with a group of pro-life students who were tabling on campus. Rodriguez was later fired from her position after threatening a reporter from the New York Post, who was looking into this incident, with a machete.

Woke professor argues with student after he called police heroes

An unnamed professor from Cypress College was captured having a heated discussion with a student over Zoom. The professor verbally attacked the student, who had given a presentation on "cancel culture" and his support of law enforcement. The university later confirmed that the professor was put on leave after the incident.

Professor goes on Anti-Trump rant 

Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox was filmed by a student going on an anti-Trump rant during her human-sexuality class at Orange Coast College. This rant included Professor Cox describing Trump's election as "an act of terrorism”. The student who filmed this outburst was suspended for an entire semester along with several other punishments, including a three-page apology essay to Professor Cox explaining his actions. Orange Coast College continues to defend Professor Cox, citing the student code of conduct.

Unhinged teacher caught on video going on left-wing political rant

Lehi High School teacher Leah Kinyon was filmed amid a wild, left-wing rant during a chemistry class. Kinyon made several politically charged remarks, which included encouraging students to get vaccinated and calling President Trump a "literal moron." Despite her claims that the school admins "don't give a crap" about her delusional ramblings, a statement from Lehi High School reveals that she "is no longer an employee of Alpine School District."

Far-left Berkeley law professor melts down when a Senator asks her if men can get pregnant

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Berkeley Law Professor Khiara M. Bridges was asked by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to clarify earlier statements involving "people with a capacity for pregnancy." The senator's line of questioning is met with a long-winded, frantic rant accusing the senator of being transphobic. When Sen. Hawley tries to clarify further, Professor Bridges makes the outrageous claim that such a line of questioning somehow leads to trans suicides.