Woke WSJ "News" Coverage: "Trump Draws Bright Line Between Sexes; Headaches Are Ahead"

Tl;dr: Trump's effort to undo Democrats' gender-ideological madness will not be seamlessly simple and entirely uncontroversial.

   What an idiotic "news" item.

   As many have noted, WSJ's editorial page clearly leans right. But its newsroom seems as blue-biased as any other.

   Imagine going back 15 years and showing the electorate this story:

One of President Trump’s first-day executive orders proclaimed that “women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.” It sounds simple, but translating it into action across a vast federal bureaucracy won’t be.
As social norms around gender have grown more fluid in recent years, the federal government in a variety of settings has moved to accommodate those who don’t identify with their sex at birth. People applying for travel documents or Social Security cards and filing employment discrimination claims can check off an X instead of male or female.

Translation: Democrats' injection of postpostmodern pseudoscientific lunacy into government has implemented certain idiotic policies that will now have to be undone. The blue team and its hysterical foot soldiers are going to make untangling this as difficult as possible.

   First, though: stop using the term 'gender'; the correct term is 'sex.' There is, basically, no such thing as "gender" as opposed to sex. Yes, for years I pointed out that there used to be such a distinction. Back in the day, 'gender' was used to refer to the distinction between masculinity and femininity, which are behavioral types. (And, of course, there's a genuine range of positions in between, with androgyny being the middlemost segment of the range.) But since then, it's come to be used by the left to mean a large number of different things, many of those definitions being loaded with gender ideology, others flat-out logically defective (e.g. circular). The genders--when the term was meaningful--clearly were NOT man and woman. They were masculine and feminine. Sliding from the latter meaning to the former was part of the central gender ideological sophistry of pretending that man and woman are not biological kinds. Then, of course, we got a woman is anyone who thinks s/he's a woman... An outright circular definition--which can, then, be rejected outright. If S thinks S is a woman, what is it that S thinks S is? The correct answer: an adult female human... The gender ideological answer...well...they have none. It's like defining 'zorg' as any picture of a zorg. What are zorgs pictures of? Why, zorgs of course...which are...uh...what again? Circular definitions fail to ground out. I.e. fail.

   Anyway, now I would only use the term 'gender' if I knew it was going to score points against the left in some way. I'm done with niceties. I'm inclined to think that we should wage terminological war against them until they're beaten back and we've re-established the status quo ante. Another terminological suggestion I floated long ago: start using 'transwoman' to mean woman pretending to be a man, instead of man pretending to be a woman. That makes a lot more sense, and it is likely to infuriate and flummox them.

   It's basically time to go scorched earth on this insanity.