On Thursday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about a New York Times column that the Christmas classic “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” is full of “queer code.” Video and partial transcript below:
Apparently, The New York Times editorial page, when it’s not defending anti-Semitism coming from particular sources, is also a place for people to spill their feelings about their childhood struggles with sexuality.
It’s amazing, half of editorial pages on the left-wing are now dedicated to people telling their personal stories about coming to grips with their own orientation, and it’s like, why? Okay, so what? Here’s the example.
Jennifer Finney Boylan, who is a transgender woman, meaning a man who believes that he’s a woman, has a piece in The New York Times called “Rudolph, The Queerest Holiday Special.”
It gets better for misfit reindeer, too.
So now we are to believe that a holiday special constructed in 1964 is actually a secret decoded message about being gay in America. So we have a long piece about why Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer is an inspiration to gay kids the world over.
I’m sure that conservatives who love this old holiday chestnut will be infuriated by this suggestion.
Not infuriated, just puzzled why you would think that a holiday special constructed in 1964 is about gay rights — and also, why I would care how you interpret Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. This is like a trite entry from your journal, diary, in your “intersectional theory” class. But Jennifer Finney Boylan says:
But if you watch the show without understanding that it’s central conflict is the way people who are different are constantly shunned and humiliated — well, I don’t know what show you’re watching.
Well, what if that’s just a general message that applies to anyone who’s ever been bullied? I was viciously bullied in high school — that had nothing to do sexual orientation. A lot of kids are, but apparently everything is now about sexual orientation.
Conservatives seem to miss the point of a lot of things having to do with Christmas, actually. Is it really possible that anyone can watch (or read) Charles Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol” without understanding its fundamental critique of capitalism?
“A Christmas Carol” is not really about capitalism so much as it is about the idea that capitalism doesn’t solve the problem of the need for charity. Again, this goes back to the fundamental point of the show, which is that free markets and liberty are wondrous, wondrous things. But, you also have to have an underlying social fabric in order to promote those things.
As for “Rudolph,” the whole movie feels as LGBTQ-friendly to me as any episode of “Queer Eye” or “Steven Universe” or “The L Word.”
Except for the fact that Rudolph doesn’t, you know, like have sex with any of the other male reindeer. So aside from that, and the fact that it’s a children’s special — I am particularly tired of the hijacking of children’s literature … in order promote political viewpoints on sexual matters. It’s a piece of children’s literature, cut it out.
The Left likes to play this game a lot when it comes to TV. So what they will do is, for example, some members of the LGBTQ community will start saying that “SpongeBob Square Pants” is like a gay metaphor, and then people on the Right will be like, “What are you talking, that’s ridiculous. Like, stop it.” [Then the Left will say] “Aha, you’re upset by a children’s cartoons.” Like, well, no, you’re the ones who are hijacking a children’s cartoon to make a point about your own sexual orientation.
I remember this was a big controversy in the early ’90s when some members of the LGBTQ community were suggesting that some of the Teletubbies were gay. And so Jerry Falwell made a comment [paraphrasing], “Well, the Teletubbies aren’t gay and it’s silly to try and hijack children’s characters” and the Left was like, “Aha, trolled you.”
How about this — how about you just leave the children’s literature alone, especially because you have a whole wing of children’s literature, we’ve talked about it on the show, that is specifically designed to promote these sexualized viewpoints for children. Can’t you just leave Rudolph alone? He’s got enough problems than you putting your your own issues with sexual orientation on his fragile flying back.