Lisa, your instincts as a journalist were correct. You were keeping your editors in the loop, trying to give them a sense of why you wrote the story the way you did, with a sense of the broader picture. On any other assignment, this would have established you as their go-to.
You could not have known at that point how everything would become so twisted up.
I believe you are finding yourself in the same quagmire as many of us parents of trans-ideology captured young people - that uncomfortable state of “what if I had done this instead”. Just as many of us have concluded, I hope you keep moving forward and never stop trying to have your voice heard on this. Your writing has been a godsend for me and my sanity in the face of this trans madness that has stolen my son, as I’m sure it has been for many of us families affected by this. I’m sure you would like to reach a wider audience, and I hope for that for you. Your measured, compassionate tone on this topic is invaluable. Maybe we will someday see the day when major media sources eat crow on their previous treatment of transgender ideology - and that would be marvelous to take back the discussion from the fanatic fringes on either side of the transgender divide.
Well said, L RiverOtter. Ms. Selin Davis' research, analysis and writing has indeed been a life raft, especially for those of us parents who have been blindsided by ROGD and are looking for answers as to how we got into this mess.
You were doing the normal thing: here’s some information and here’s some more. Let’s report more. You thought you were dealing with people in good faith.
Could you have stayed stealth? Well, maybe, but not for long. They would still have ejected you eventually. They were not operating in good faith.
If there is one thing I have learned from this whole nasty business, it’s that facts often don’t mean much to people who have decided to take a position on a certain topic.
Oh Lisa, please don't beat yourself up. Hindsight is always 20/20 - but not necessarily "true"! 😉. I hope you can find some comfort in knowing that you both stayed true to your journalistic & moral principles, AND were right on this issue, long before others were. None of that takes away the very real pain of cancellation by institutions that you really believed in and had dedicated your life to, of course - OR the very real pain that you've witnessed in children and families - but I suspect that it will ultimately give you a measure of peace that you did everything you could with the tools and knowledge you had at the time. Many in my field (psychology) made similar mistakes, not imagining that this could ever grow the way it has.
You have been a huge light in the darkness, and your thoughtful and nuanced work has given so many others the courage they have needed to speak out in their own ways. These kinds of problems are only solved by many different voices coming together, each speaking the truth in their own unique way, and your unique perspective and voice has spoken to many that others could not reach. You have made a Massive. Difference. (Even when it doesn't always feel like it.). Your book will too.
If you had continued to insert little things like you were, at some point, probably sooner rather than later, you would have hit a nerve with someone else on staff who was affirming their child or niece, or GLAAD or HRC would have reached out to an editor to point out how problematic your writing was and they would have stopped asking you to write for them. And CNN would still be reporting the same biased, misinformed, one-sided articles they are now.
As with all things political there is a pendulum at play. And it will swing both ways eventually. I taught college for almost forty years. I was severely upbraided from a feminist colleague at another institution when she saw me reading Camille Paglia. I asked her about her objections and she informed me that she "would not read that trash." I wonder if she passed that dialectical approach on to her students.
We must not be afraid to examine all parts of any controversy without prejudice. It used to be the maxim of academic inquiry and disinterest.
I don't think you would have been allowed to continue, do you?
It was not only that you wanted to report more, it's that less and less of what was true was being published. There was a wall of lies and censorship on the move. It was going to overrun you, since you were telling the truth.
I think your bravery helped so many people, I am so glad you spoke up as
you did! I am just so sorry that so many who should have supported you did not!
Nope, you did the right thing. They - the "we don't want to break that story" editors - did the wrong thing, and they keep doing it, after Cass, after Fox Varian, after another shooter. I'm with the other commenters here in expressing my deep gratitude for your writing, your community-building, and your truth-telling. Thank you for all you do.
Imagine an artist -- say, a sculptor -- deciding to uglify her works going forward because the other artists around her don't like being shown up. If you've managed to get a glimpse of some ideal and you have the ability to incorporate that ideal into your work, but those around you constantly tell you to smother that impulse, what it boils down to is a choice between your conscience and being part of the herd. Being a herd animal is only comfortable once one ceases being honest with oneself. Choosing willful blindness just seems to me like step one in the direction of ultimately choosing oblivion.
On the other hand, in the real world, the pragmatists are the ones who live to fight another day. But I would imagine any pragmatist with a modicum of self-awareness and a good memory has to also carry around a steadily growing burden of guilt, unless they've found some mechanism for requesting -- and accepting -- forgiveness.
Maybe any the creative person is always stuck with this choice: Either muddle along constantly holding your fire, or elect to end it all early, going out in a blaze of glory. In this very unfair universe, mere mortals can't have both survival and glory. Anyone who seems to have pulled that off is likely addicted to some secret stash of Copium the rest of us haven't yet noticed.
But really, there's always another herd you can join, or build up around you (as you have done, Lisa). Perhaps the ease and speed with which a little excellence can make that possible is the "good" side of today's double-edged technology sword, social media. New green shoots, I believe, is the only way our liberal democratic civilizations can possibly survive despite a moribund and corrupted Fourth Estate.
Thank you for speaking out. Each of our voices matter. When simply speaking truthfully about material reality gets one banned or censored or labelled a heretic - you know you're up against ideology - not science or reasoned debate.
I really appreciate learning this back story. I share what others have noted: there was no way at that time to anticipate the response you received, and moreover, what you were pitching to them truly was breaking news and worthy of reporting. I’m so grateful you have continued on, and are here on Substack, bringing us the news. 🙏❤️🙏
Funny that you write for the public but don’t like criticism!
AI
“ Contemporary psychologists and writing experts generally view the overuse of the first person ("I," "we") in professional, academic, and scientific writing as a barrier to objectivity, credibility, and conciseness. While some use is acceptable for personal experience, excessive use can introduce bias, seem less formal, and weaken authority.
Lisa, your instincts as a journalist were correct. You were keeping your editors in the loop, trying to give them a sense of why you wrote the story the way you did, with a sense of the broader picture. On any other assignment, this would have established you as their go-to.
You could not have known at that point how everything would become so twisted up.
I believe you are finding yourself in the same quagmire as many of us parents of trans-ideology captured young people - that uncomfortable state of “what if I had done this instead”. Just as many of us have concluded, I hope you keep moving forward and never stop trying to have your voice heard on this. Your writing has been a godsend for me and my sanity in the face of this trans madness that has stolen my son, as I’m sure it has been for many of us families affected by this. I’m sure you would like to reach a wider audience, and I hope for that for you. Your measured, compassionate tone on this topic is invaluable. Maybe we will someday see the day when major media sources eat crow on their previous treatment of transgender ideology - and that would be marvelous to take back the discussion from the fanatic fringes on either side of the transgender divide.
Well said, L RiverOtter. Ms. Selin Davis' research, analysis and writing has indeed been a life raft, especially for those of us parents who have been blindsided by ROGD and are looking for answers as to how we got into this mess.
You did the best you could.
You were doing the normal thing: here’s some information and here’s some more. Let’s report more. You thought you were dealing with people in good faith.
Could you have stayed stealth? Well, maybe, but not for long. They would still have ejected you eventually. They were not operating in good faith.
To know the truth & be muzzled is torture to the mind
That’s true. I was naive, thinking I could open my editors’ eyes. But I was also tortured by silencing myself.
If there is one thing I have learned from this whole nasty business, it’s that facts often don’t mean much to people who have decided to take a position on a certain topic.
Oh Lisa, please don't beat yourself up. Hindsight is always 20/20 - but not necessarily "true"! 😉. I hope you can find some comfort in knowing that you both stayed true to your journalistic & moral principles, AND were right on this issue, long before others were. None of that takes away the very real pain of cancellation by institutions that you really believed in and had dedicated your life to, of course - OR the very real pain that you've witnessed in children and families - but I suspect that it will ultimately give you a measure of peace that you did everything you could with the tools and knowledge you had at the time. Many in my field (psychology) made similar mistakes, not imagining that this could ever grow the way it has.
You have been a huge light in the darkness, and your thoughtful and nuanced work has given so many others the courage they have needed to speak out in their own ways. These kinds of problems are only solved by many different voices coming together, each speaking the truth in their own unique way, and your unique perspective and voice has spoken to many that others could not reach. You have made a Massive. Difference. (Even when it doesn't always feel like it.). Your book will too.
Hang in there! ❤️
The time will come when having been blackballed by the NY Times will be seen as the honor it is.
If you had continued to insert little things like you were, at some point, probably sooner rather than later, you would have hit a nerve with someone else on staff who was affirming their child or niece, or GLAAD or HRC would have reached out to an editor to point out how problematic your writing was and they would have stopped asking you to write for them. And CNN would still be reporting the same biased, misinformed, one-sided articles they are now.
Exactly. Even if the information was trickled down, it would have hit a nerve.
It all comes down to changing someone's mind on ideology. Sadly, that doesn't often happen. They don't care about facts.
As with all things political there is a pendulum at play. And it will swing both ways eventually. I taught college for almost forty years. I was severely upbraided from a feminist colleague at another institution when she saw me reading Camille Paglia. I asked her about her objections and she informed me that she "would not read that trash." I wonder if she passed that dialectical approach on to her students.
We must not be afraid to examine all parts of any controversy without prejudice. It used to be the maxim of academic inquiry and disinterest.
I don't think you would have been allowed to continue, do you?
It was not only that you wanted to report more, it's that less and less of what was true was being published. There was a wall of lies and censorship on the move. It was going to overrun you, since you were telling the truth.
I think your bravery helped so many people, I am so glad you spoke up as
you did! I am just so sorry that so many who should have supported you did not!
Thank you!!
And those who silenced you are part of the enormous harm that many have suffered and are suffering even now.
Nope, you did the right thing. They - the "we don't want to break that story" editors - did the wrong thing, and they keep doing it, after Cass, after Fox Varian, after another shooter. I'm with the other commenters here in expressing my deep gratitude for your writing, your community-building, and your truth-telling. Thank you for all you do.
Imagine an artist -- say, a sculptor -- deciding to uglify her works going forward because the other artists around her don't like being shown up. If you've managed to get a glimpse of some ideal and you have the ability to incorporate that ideal into your work, but those around you constantly tell you to smother that impulse, what it boils down to is a choice between your conscience and being part of the herd. Being a herd animal is only comfortable once one ceases being honest with oneself. Choosing willful blindness just seems to me like step one in the direction of ultimately choosing oblivion.
On the other hand, in the real world, the pragmatists are the ones who live to fight another day. But I would imagine any pragmatist with a modicum of self-awareness and a good memory has to also carry around a steadily growing burden of guilt, unless they've found some mechanism for requesting -- and accepting -- forgiveness.
Maybe any the creative person is always stuck with this choice: Either muddle along constantly holding your fire, or elect to end it all early, going out in a blaze of glory. In this very unfair universe, mere mortals can't have both survival and glory. Anyone who seems to have pulled that off is likely addicted to some secret stash of Copium the rest of us haven't yet noticed.
But really, there's always another herd you can join, or build up around you (as you have done, Lisa). Perhaps the ease and speed with which a little excellence can make that possible is the "good" side of today's double-edged technology sword, social media. New green shoots, I believe, is the only way our liberal democratic civilizations can possibly survive despite a moribund and corrupted Fourth Estate.
Thank you for speaking out. Each of our voices matter. When simply speaking truthfully about material reality gets one banned or censored or labelled a heretic - you know you're up against ideology - not science or reasoned debate.
I really appreciate learning this back story. I share what others have noted: there was no way at that time to anticipate the response you received, and moreover, what you were pitching to them truly was breaking news and worthy of reporting. I’m so grateful you have continued on, and are here on Substack, bringing us the news. 🙏❤️🙏
Brava !
Unlike many you can sleep well at night
If it is a diary to yourself why tell us ? Ask AI about the overuse of the first person in writing to others .
I invite you not to read my substack, which has a lot of personal writing, if that is not your thing.
Funny that you write for the public but don’t like criticism!
AI
“ Contemporary psychologists and writing experts generally view the overuse of the first person ("I," "we") in professional, academic, and scientific writing as a barrier to objectivity, credibility, and conciseness. While some use is acceptable for personal experience, excessive use can introduce bias, seem less formal, and weaken authority.
How many times did you use the word 'I' in the first paragraph ?
When in the first person you are the subject not us, the readers.
Indeed, this is a piece about how I'm haunted by my own decision to come out.