I'm going to make two completely unrelated observations about this interview:
1. I appreciate the fact that the Family Policy Institute of Washington is uncovering the sneaky, despotic machinations of the liberal establishment.
In addition, I appreciate how the interviews expose the arbitrary, harebrained logic of transgenderism.
That said, accurate opinion polling presumes that respondents feel free to say what they really think. But the average college campus is a police state of political correctness. If you stick a microphone in front of students and ask questions like that, even most students who think transgenderism, unisex locker rooms, &c., are BS, are reluctant to say that on camera. They are acutely self-conscious of severe reprisal that awaits them if they dare to challenge the regnant political orthodoxies on camera. The video will go viral. They will be subjected to a cyber lynch mob. They will be hauled before college Kangaroo courts, in a Kafkesque no-win situation. They will be ordered to recant on pain of expulsion. They will be required to attend "sensitivity" seminars. This is a reason the liberal establishment resorts to intimidation. It works! The establishment has the high cards.
2. On a completely different note, these interviews took place on the campus of the UDub (as locals call it). You can see different parts of the campus in the background.
Now, because I'm fairly familiar with the campus, I know where some of these shots were taken. I haven't been there for almost 20 years, but before I moved out of state, I often went there to do research.
One shot was taken at Red Square in front of Suzzallo library. Another shot was taken in the Quad, just above Red Square. The cherry trees are in blossom this time of year.
However, it takes pinpoint knowledge in time and place to know exactly where these interviews were conducted. Most people watching the video wouldn't have a clue. If you go forward or backward a few years, the scene will change. For instance, Red Square used to be covered in grass rather than brick (from which it takes its name).
Let's draw a comparison:
Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five covered colonnades (Jn 5:2).
As one scholar notes:
John 5:2 was dramatically corroborated by archaeological discoveries in the 1890s, as the site of the pool of Bethesda was located in Jerusalem. Reconstruction showed how two juxtaposed rectangular enclosures would have created five porticoes (NIV "covered colonnades")–the four sides forming a perimeter of the entire area combined with the dividing wall down the middle. Identification of the name of the site was later made possible by the reference in the Copper Scroll from Qumran… C. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel (IVP, 2001), 109.
This is one of those incidental details in John's Gospel that belies liberal dating schemes. This is a time-sensitive description. The Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD. So this anecdote is contingent on living memory. Someone who was there at the time. It's inexplicable that someone writing in the 2C would have that intimate knowledge of pre-70 AD Jerusalem.