NY Times Editor Blasts Trump Administration Over Transgender Policy. Shapiro Decks Him With Reality.

screenshot

On Sunday, Jonathan Weisman, the Deputy Washington Editor of The New York Times, tweeted his dismay over the Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Department leading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex, prompting a tweet from Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro that reestablished a sense of sanity.

Weisman’s tweet commented on a piece in the Times, titled, "‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration," that opened with this deliriously overwrought statement freaking out from Trump’s administration desiring a return to normalcy:

The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

The Times piece then noted the Obama administration’s actions in promoting transgender rights and blurring the lines between the sexes: “A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth.”

The Times delineated what the Trump Administration intended:

The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times.

That did it: Weisman tweeted his hot-and-bothered response, echoing the title of the piece and hyperventilating, "Whoa, a WOW story."

Shapiro fired back with a straight-from-the-shoulder response:

This is not the first time Shapiro has blasted Weisman; reviewing Weisman’s book, “(((Semitism))),” Shapiro wrote:

Weisman has published a book about anti-Semitism—and, more specifically, about the supposedly grave threat to Jews springing from the alt-right and the Trump administration. (((Semitism))), for such is the book’s title, suffers from two grave ills. First, Weisman believes that political leftism and Judaism are identical. Second, he knows little or nothing about the political right, in whose camp he places the alt-right movement. Combine these two shortcomings with a heavy dose of self-regard, and you get (((Semitism))): a toxic brew of anti-Israel sentiment, bagels-and-lox cultural Jewishness, and unbridled hostility toward mainstream conservatism, which he lumps together with despicable alt-right anti-Semitism …

The problem of alt-right anti-Semitism, Weisman thinks, is just a problem of anti-leftism. If we could all just give money to the notoriously left-wing propaganda-pushing Southern Poverty Law Center, watch Trump-referential productions of Eugene Ionesco’s Rhinoceros at the Edinburgh National Festival (yes, this is in the book, and no, it is not parody), ignore anti-Semitic attacks at the Chicago Dyke March (I am not making this up), slap some vinyl signs on synagogues (no, I am still not making this up), and “not get too self-congratulatory” (seriously, guys, this is all real), all will be well. In the end, Weisman’s goal is to build a coalition of ethnic and political groups, cobbled together in common cause against conservatives—conservatives, he says, who represent the alt-right support base.

… Weisman’s ardent allegiance to leftism leads him to misdiagnose the problem, to ignore the rising anti-Semitism of his own side (the DNC nearly elected anti-Semite Keith Ellison its leader last year), to prescribe the wrong solutions, and, most of all, to react in knee-jerk fashion to the alt-right by flattering himself as the epitome of everything the alt-right hates. Thin as the paper it was printed on, (((Semitism))) is a failure of imagination.

What's Your Reaction?