No, New York Times, The Truth Is Not 'Anti-Trans' - Bobby Burack

The New York Times published a piece this week accusing Donald Trump and Republicans of trying to win the election by stoking the flames of the culture war, particularly on the issue of transgenderism in America.

"Trump and Republicans bet big on anti-trans ads across the country," the headline reads.

Times author Shane Goldmacher reports that Trump and other Republican candidates have spent more than $65 million on television ads since the beginning of August that focused on taxpayer-funded gender transitions in prisons, trans athletes, and gender-affirming surgeries.

"The flood of ads in races for the House, Senate and White House inflamed cultural divisions and cast Democrats as outside the mainstream. They are a sign that Republican strategists believe they have found a potent third leg for their messaging stool in 2024, along with the mainstays of inflation and immigration," says Goldmacher.

The headline is catchy. We admit that. But it's also willfully dishonest.

What exactly does "anti-trans" mean, anyway? 

Republicans have made three primary arguments against the transgenderism movement. Let's take them, one by one.

"Gender-affirming surgeries"

"Gender-affirming surgeries" is a euphemism for sex-change operations, which often lead to genital mutilation.

A Heritage exposé in 2022 detailed the eerie and harmful effects of sex-change operations. Patients of such often suffer a type of pain that is unthinkable and ever-lasting.

Specifically, the doctors detailed how a male body regards a surgical vagina as a wound that never heals.

The article reports:

First, Dr. Chu acknowledges that [sex change\ surgery won’t actually "reassign" sex: "[A] body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require