Opinions on Ben Shapiro?

[TheRealJoeFish]

Example in a different thread that I mentioned two months ago:

I see nothing in the 9th Circuit Opinion that is legally questionable. A whole ton of the push back is based on an improper understanding of 1) what this court was doing (reviewing a request to rescind a temporary restraining order), 2) what different parts of this opinion were addressing (for instance, Ben Shapiro's analysis (which is of course that this is "Judicial Tyranny") completely conflates issues of standing and issues of merits in a way that's absolutely unbelievable coming from a Harvard Law grad (if indeed he believes it, but that's a different story)), and 3) the specific content of both the EO and the Supreme Court doctrine cited by the Court in support of its position.

When Trump's initial travel ban was blocked by the 9th Circuit, his analysis was "judicial tyranny" that appeared to be based on a profound misunderstanding of the opinion. There are three possible explanations: 1) his education at Harvard Law School did not give him any understanding of constitutional law at all; 2) in his rush to rail against the decision he didn't really read it or take the time to figure out what it said; or 3) he ignored what it said because "JUDICIAL TYRANNY!" gets clicks and ad revenue and readers and to hell with what they actually said.

I'm'a let you take your pick.

---

I mean, for instance, consider this article that Shapiro published yesterday called "The Insanity of the Left's Child Gender-Confusion Agenda.

Isn't that article basically arguing against using hormone blockers on children and allowing them to medically transition at a young age.?

Look, I'm transgender myself. Female-to-male. And I happen to share the opinion that children before the age of 16 shouldn't be administered hormone blockers or drugs for medically transitioning.

As, for the most part, do I.

But therein lies the rub: the article's not arguing for or against anything.  It's making proclamations without any thought behind them ("This is science with an agenda," and "And society should not be obligated to obey the gender theory nonsense of the radical left, which seeks to confuse as many children as possible in the name of an anti-biological program in service to a political agenda," and "Ten years ago, doctors weren't embracing politically correct insanity as medicine") and passing them off with an academic veneer. He's one of those people who literally believes that the leftist scientists in the universities are consciously indoctrinating people to support a leftist agenda. What he's doing in this article is trying his damndest to turn science into a policy argument. He's not arguing about the results of an experiment or whether it's prudent to do something, he's arguing that "this is all part of those leftists' (read: the readers' enemies') plan to confuse children about their gender for 'reasons.'"

I mean, you could program a ConservaBot TalkingPoints 9000 to write this