Daily Wire Dude Knows What's Slavery, It Is Gay Couples Using Egg Donors
Michael Knowles (no relation to Beyoncé) is one of the lesser Daily Wires who is not Ben Shapiro or the neckbeard who bothers children's hospitals about the genitals of the kids inside and said yesterday that he'd rather be dead than have a transgender child. But don't fall under the false impression Knowles is not also a total creep.
He has a story to tell you, about how gay couples who use egg donors to have children ARE THE REAL SLAVEOWNERS.
MICHAEL KNOWLES: This is a couple of fellas in a romantic relationship with one another bragging about how they purchased a baby.
Oh yeah, like at the Big Lots?
Knowles plays a TikTok of a gay guy couple talking about how they found their egg donor. It sounds a lot like people talking about how they chose their sperm donor, except with eggs. They said the first couple donors they chose ended up rejecting them. But then the third one was cool! And they were so excited!
At that point, Knowles affects an Australian-type accent (the guys in the video were Australian or Kiwi or something) and starts telling a story about buying a Black slave, because that's the same:
So we were going out, we were going to look to where we could buy our cotton picker. You know, so we went to the market we wanted – we knew we wanted a cotton picker with nice big broad shoulders and nice thick, stocky legs like tree trunks. You know? Doing a great job out there in the field. And so we went the first one didn't work out. Second one, we couldn't quite get them at the – at the fair. But the third one, finally we got him. Isn't that great? Yeah. And as a result -- isn't that great.
Quick interruption to note that a big difference we notice is that the egg donors in the gay couple's story were able to say no, and the first two did. We feel like that's an important detail.
Call me crazy. Call me old-fashioned. Call me some fuddy-duddy. I think it's wrong to buy people.
Again, has this crazy old-fashioned fuddy-duddy ever heard of a sperm bank, or is his real problem that he's a homophobic bigot?
We are just curious.
Of course it's wrong to buy people. And of course that's not the same thing as using modern medicine and sperm and egg donors to conceive. But to admit that would force Mr. Knowles to also admit that there's a difference between a fertilized egg and an actual human child, and we will soon see why Mr. Knowles does not want to do that.
I think that's wrong. And most people seem to agree with that concept when we talk about the past.
Or when we talk about fully formed human beings.
They say, you know, going to a slave market and just viewing people as brute animals and then purchasing them and then having them as part of our household, that was wrong. We actually – we fought a very bloody war that was, in large part over that issue.
It was fought in all part over that issue. We know a lot of the people who listen to things like The Daily Wire are ideological, if not literal, descendants of the wrong side of that war, but there's no need to baby them. (By the way, babying them is what 100 percent of these fights over critical race theory and the DeSantis-ization of education are all about.)
And now we just do it again. Instead of buying Black guys, we buy the eggs of poor women and then we rent the wombs of other poor women and then we have purchased ourselves a designer baby – with just the right hair that we wanted and just the right eyes. And we knew we wanted a big, nice smile. Give me – oh, so sorry, lady. You're not – that smile's not big enough. Move along. Let's open up that catalog. Get some more options here. Really awful.
Except that in this scenario, instead of buying people, we are buying not people. But he can't admit this, so he has to stick with the fuckin' dumb analogy, because apparently his actual point here is that gays are gross and he doesn't like them.
So he's saying with a straight face that when couples pay women for their eggs -- they don't have to be poor, but we're guessing that'd fuck up Knowles's whole "they're the victim" argument -- and those women make the free choice to donate those eggs, and then surrogates -- again, not necessarily poor! -- carry the pregnancies, freely, of their own volition, and this is just like buying Black guys.
Does he have any clue how much his argument devalues how horrible slavery really was, and exposes how little regard he has for the horrors of it? That he'd try to use it to prove whatever dumbfuck "pro-life" white boy point he thinks he has to make?
It's also weird how in the mind of Knowles, the only people who have agency in either of these scenarios are the white men. Isn't that weird?
To say nothing of the fact that then these two men have created a child with the express intent of denying that child his mother.
Here we go.
The relationship to one's mother is one of the most important relationships that one will ever have in one's life. The care of a mother, the nurturing of a mother.
Kids need loving, stable parents who are able to provide for them. The gender -- and number! -- of the parents is mostly irrelevant,according to science. Sometimes kids of same-gender parents do better. (Of course, one of those linked studies shows that if there are any differences in outcomes for kids of same-gender parents, it comes from dealing with bigots. Quelle fuckin' surprise.)
We're not making policy based on conservative white dudes' feelings about mommy, or at least we shouldn't be.
And these men decided to create a child with the express intent of ripping that child away from his mother.
It is the most evil thing going on in the country today other than abortion, other than killing babies in the womb.
See why he couldn't admit that there's a difference between picking an egg donor out of a catalogue and buying a human slave?
Also, is he equally mad about sperm banks?
Creating a baby for the purpose of pulling that baby away from his mother – it's so profoundly evil. And, more broadly, treating people like commodities to be purchased on the open market. That is very, very evil.
Well, this has been edifying for all of us, and we are sure Michael Knowles thinks he has his little paws around a very clever "gotcha!" of an argument.
It's easy to see why he lets Ben Shapiro pay his salary.
Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter right here!
And once that doesn't exist, I'm also giving things a go at the Mastodon (@email@example.com) and at Post!
Have you heard that Wonkette DOES NOT EXIST without your donations? Please hear it now, and if you have ever enjoyed a Wonkette article, throw us some bucks, or better yet, SUBSCRIBE!
Evan Hurst is the managing editor of Wonkette, which means he is the boss of you, unless you are Rebecca, who is boss of him. His dog Lula is judging you right now.
Follow him on Twitter RIGHT HERE.