NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE O n the morning of Memorial Day, I glanced at Twitter and noticed some uproar over photos of a Pride display at Kohl’s that featured a themed onesie. Given everything else going on in the world, I didn’t particularly view it as something worth getting into a tizzy about, so I sent out this tweet and got on with my day:

It didn’t take long for the tweet, which now has about 2.5 million impressions, to transform me into a villain in the ongoing culture war.

Some of my conservative critics lashed out by branding me a “groomer,” by likening the Pride onesie to swastika clothing and me to a Nazi appeaser, and by portraying my tweet as emblematic of all the things they hate about National Review. A few others found it important to point out that I am Jewish (fact check: true).

But beyond the taunting, there were those who made an actual argument — essentially, that I was being naïve by viewing the piece of clothing in a vacuum rather than as part of a broader effort by the cultural Left to impose its agenda on kids from the moment they leave the womb.

Ben Shapiro summed up that view by writing, “Indoctrinating children into sexual fluidity is extraordinarily destructive — and yes, is the predicate philosophy for transitioning minors.”

This argument doesn’t make much sense. The reason I agree with efforts to stop public schools from pushing lessons about sexuality and gender to children as young as kindergartners is that the gender-ideology curriculum is a case of one side imposing its values on another. It forces conversations of complex and sensitive topics on parents who may prefer to discuss these topics at a time and in a manner of their own choosing. In contrast, the existence of Pride onesies does not impose anything on parents who choose not to dress their children in them. And practically speaking, any child who grows up in the type of household that would want to dress their baby in a Pride onesie is likely already going to be exposed to progressive messaging on sexuality and gender ideology at home.

I certainly understand expressing a general displeasure at parents using their children to promote their own political views. But given that there is a market for conservative-themed baby clothes, it’s fair to say that the blowback at Kohl’s had more to do with the underlying message.

It’s one thing to see the Kohl’s display and laugh and eye-roll about another cringey example of corporate virtue-signaling. But getting outraged over it is completely unnecessary. Conservatives have spent years mocking progressives for being overly sensitive and musing about how easily offended leftists get about small things to the point of being unable to function. But I fear conservatives are imitating some of the worst instincts of the other side. Listening to conservatives discuss how every little thing — including a onesie — is inextricably linked to every aspect of the left-wing agenda reminds me of Oberlin undergrads complaining about “microaggressions.”

Conservatives would be mistaken to mimic the Left by adopting an all-or-nothing mentality on the culture war. The reason I am supportive of efforts to prevent males identifying as females from competing in women’s sports is that the biological advantage the male athletes have is unfair to other parties — i.e., women athletes. I agree with the push to protect minors from gender-transition treatment because such a life-altering decision should wait until adulthood — a view reinforced by our ongoing series on detransitioners. (A number of states, including progressive California, currently ban minors from getting tattoos, even with parental consent.)

The idea that somebody who holds views like mine can get tagged as a “groomer” for not cranking up the outrage meter to eleven over an article of infant clothing is not only absurd but likely a political loser. When leftists argue that men can have babies, they look ridiculous. When you’re freaking out over a onesie, you do.