I'm providing a link to this piece (above the paywall) in a Substack to come out later today, which will include a very snarky comment about the NYT at the end.
Based on my observations over a roughly 50 year period, the NYT takes longer than a generational cycle to shift. Their negative position towards lesbians and gays from at least 1969 persisted until roughly 1992/3, around 25 years. But, by then "Trans" had attached itself to the Lesbian and Gay freedom moment. By 1997 the rights of heterosexual men (self-declared to hate homos) to proudly mimic women superseded the presence of the words Lesbian and Gay within the political flow. "Sex" was removed from "transsexual", and we entered the 2000's with fully developed extortive empathy towards "trans", hijacked standing of women, lesbians and gays, equating rejection of trans with violence towards women, lesbians and gays, and equating rejectors with pre-stonewall bigots who should be banned from speech.
By 2025, 25 years later, the cycle is down-shifting. You still must state the equivalent, "Love the sinner, hate the sin" as Andrew did, unable to name men compulsively mimicking women, still using the term "gender identity" coined by a man who removed genitals from children and tortured them sexually to defend his definition, still publishing conversations with sex mimics who self-declare hatred for lesbian and gay rights.
Until "gender" itself appears in a Sunday article, "Maybe Butler Was Right All Along, For Some Gender is a Performance" about sex mimicry for some which forces them to hide sex, to distort sex in biology, who take the honors, rights, and safety from women, I expect nothing to change. Without understanding sex mimicry, the paper and editorial is trapped in a context which 'consistently, persistently, insistently' hides factual accuracy in order to protect itself from claims it has returned toward bigotry, as defined by a socially engineered extortion structure which is collapsing as we watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_mimicry is a primer. The behavior in animals is widespread, quite varied, but focused on either avoiding male aggression, or entering female enclaves for sex.
In the late 19th century, the term "Batesian Mimicry" emerged where animals mimic something dangerous - a caterpillar mimics a viper - to scare predators.
Anti-Batesian mimicry is also well-known, where animals mimic something helpless - a possum plays dead - which takes predators off-script.
Anti-Batesian Sex Mimicry, generally appearing as a non-threatening female to avoid male aggression is well-known across species, from lizards to orangutans.
But there is also sex mimicry (signaling) which confuses males, and females, allowing deceptive males into female enclaves for sex, unseen by harem guards.
An example is cuttlefish who can, under conscious control, display a male pattern on half their body to a female as they mate, and a female pattern on half their body to a male, to be left alone.
Also called "sneaky-fucker" strategy.
Humans have many behaviors in common with animals - pair bonding, lying, altruism. Sex mimicry is one, and since the late 90's it has increasingly been recognized in science.
You could easily temporarily mimic a man with grooming, men easily mimic women. In some, the mimicry is compulsive, a defensive mechanism to avoid male aggression, and becomes as all-encompassing as compulsion to drink is in alcoholism.
In some compulsive sex mimicry is sexualized, entrance to female prisons, bathrooms, changing rooms to gain sexual gratification - sneaky fuckers.
Omnipresent in compulsion is maintaining the fiction and effectiveness of mimicry.
From that comes recognition as a violence, life-threatening to a mimic.
Note that whenever someone writes about gender in the NYTimes and comments are allowed, the top 10 comments by popularity always critique the article from the same perspective as you have: it's probably a mistake to transition children; biological sex is real; it's reasonable to reserve some spaces for biological women.
So, the problem isn't that liberals aren't exposed to these messages, it's that the leadership of the Times is still scared of being called anti-trans.
There is a point at which each of us need to decide to finish mourning what we've lost and to go forth and build something to take its place. This is decidedly difficult to do, particularly if the metaphorical "death" we've witness was a slow process , as the death of an institution usually is. (The timing for this pivot is tricky, as the "death" process that some of us must witness is ongoing, so what I say here probably calls for parents like me to compartmentalize because the child we knew hasn't completely been lost, but is still in the middle of the process of vivisecting herself or himself in accordance with this cultish believe system. But there's only so long one can function while in a state of horror.)
As we mourn whatever we've watched succumb to evil, watching the corruption wreak its bit-by-bit changes to the body, eliminating every trace of what we used to love about it, the intensity of our yearning for the qualities we watched being snuffed out makes it difficult to muster up the patience and optimism that we all need for the job of building something new and weathering its growing pains, tackling it's imperfections. Every little setback or small eruption of the inevitable human failings manifesting themselves within the networks we are now forming to start institutions capable (eventually) of replacing the zombified one we mourn will demoralize us into falling for that slippery slope fallacy . . . But we have to resist our weakened and raw state, resist the defeatism that tempts us to spend too much time reflecting on how something so remarkable that held promise for so much more greatness died (or is dying). Simple, but hard.
But, starting over is what made America, culturally and materially, rich. Yes, the Grey Lady's lumbering corpse today is both a menace and a source of disgust. But I think we've got to have faith that her replacement is on her way, and work towards that, if need be, one mind at a time. The truth will out . . .
"But there's only so long one can function while in a state of horror." As a mom who is also witnessing her daughter's captured state, I say AMEN to that.
Can I add a P.S.? I want to encourage anyone who's been living under the heel of this ideological boot that still seems so firmly planted on top of everything around us for many years, part of the solution on how to keep going, to at least exercise whatever of your remaining energy is left to protect the last few inches of your own structural integrity, is to volunteer in some capacity beyond just money, if you can (even if it's nothing more than as an anonymous proofreader, to know you're helping "your team" avoid public errors their critics will seize on is a balm. Even if you're not hooked up with a gender critical charity yet, try to find time to write write the occasional thank you note to some journalist whom you've noticed has managed to get something sensible into print. Do something to support the human beings who are in a position to be more public than you, even if it's to deliver some doughnuts to some people standing up in front of a courthouse in your neck of the woods -- something to express yourself positively to someone.). I am convinced that Lisa and all the other writers who've maintained their faith in the tenets of the original church of journalism, currently striking out on their own (whether by choice or or not) in small boats on Substack and other platforms, constitute the beginnings of what has to eventually replace the establishment press zombies, like the NYT and Washington Post (that recent Washington Post piece was surreal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/12/28/transgender-female-athlete-competition-trump/ ). Maybe Social Media was a conveyer or poison to our children, but it's high time we each leveraged it to offer free labor to those organizations and individuals who are using social media to help get our culture back onto the healthier footing that any representational democracy requires -- to do (as Lisa put it years ago) their f*cking jobs -- what those toxic mimics of journalism ceased doing long ago.
They are never going to get it because they just don't want to get it. They would rather hurt people than admit they were wrong. This is today's American left.
No, I don't think so. I think progressives really do believe they are helping people with all of this gender stuff. I'm not a progessive--a proud liberal, thanks--but for years I went along with gender-woo because I thought that's what a good person did. I finally had my own trans tipping point in 2020, but I'm sympathetic to those who have not...yet.
Gender ideologues are true believers, and I think they are WAY scarier than cynics. In my fifty-plus years on this planet, I have seen more harm done by those who were SURE they are right, than by those who don't care if they are wrong.
It is precisely the independent perspective of someone who isn't embedded in a community who will have the clarity and freedom to report the truth. This point seems to be completely lost on the modern left.
I've been doing my absolute best since 2015. Will keep going into 2026. Thanks, Lisa.
You certainly have, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to you, too, Kara.
I'm providing a link to this piece (above the paywall) in a Substack to come out later today, which will include a very snarky comment about the NYT at the end.
I am looking forward to that!!!
Based on my observations over a roughly 50 year period, the NYT takes longer than a generational cycle to shift. Their negative position towards lesbians and gays from at least 1969 persisted until roughly 1992/3, around 25 years. But, by then "Trans" had attached itself to the Lesbian and Gay freedom moment. By 1997 the rights of heterosexual men (self-declared to hate homos) to proudly mimic women superseded the presence of the words Lesbian and Gay within the political flow. "Sex" was removed from "transsexual", and we entered the 2000's with fully developed extortive empathy towards "trans", hijacked standing of women, lesbians and gays, equating rejection of trans with violence towards women, lesbians and gays, and equating rejectors with pre-stonewall bigots who should be banned from speech.
By 2025, 25 years later, the cycle is down-shifting. You still must state the equivalent, "Love the sinner, hate the sin" as Andrew did, unable to name men compulsively mimicking women, still using the term "gender identity" coined by a man who removed genitals from children and tortured them sexually to defend his definition, still publishing conversations with sex mimics who self-declare hatred for lesbian and gay rights.
Until "gender" itself appears in a Sunday article, "Maybe Butler Was Right All Along, For Some Gender is a Performance" about sex mimicry for some which forces them to hide sex, to distort sex in biology, who take the honors, rights, and safety from women, I expect nothing to change. Without understanding sex mimicry, the paper and editorial is trapped in a context which 'consistently, persistently, insistently' hides factual accuracy in order to protect itself from claims it has returned toward bigotry, as defined by a socially engineered extortion structure which is collapsing as we watch.
Very interesting term, "sex mimicry." Keep that up!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_mimicry is a primer. The behavior in animals is widespread, quite varied, but focused on either avoiding male aggression, or entering female enclaves for sex.
In the late 19th century, the term "Batesian Mimicry" emerged where animals mimic something dangerous - a caterpillar mimics a viper - to scare predators.
Anti-Batesian mimicry is also well-known, where animals mimic something helpless - a possum plays dead - which takes predators off-script.
Anti-Batesian Sex Mimicry, generally appearing as a non-threatening female to avoid male aggression is well-known across species, from lizards to orangutans.
But there is also sex mimicry (signaling) which confuses males, and females, allowing deceptive males into female enclaves for sex, unseen by harem guards.
An example is cuttlefish who can, under conscious control, display a male pattern on half their body to a female as they mate, and a female pattern on half their body to a male, to be left alone.
Also called "sneaky-fucker" strategy.
Humans have many behaviors in common with animals - pair bonding, lying, altruism. Sex mimicry is one, and since the late 90's it has increasingly been recognized in science.
You could easily temporarily mimic a man with grooming, men easily mimic women. In some, the mimicry is compulsive, a defensive mechanism to avoid male aggression, and becomes as all-encompassing as compulsion to drink is in alcoholism.
In some compulsive sex mimicry is sexualized, entrance to female prisons, bathrooms, changing rooms to gain sexual gratification - sneaky fuckers.
Omnipresent in compulsion is maintaining the fiction and effectiveness of mimicry.
From that comes recognition as a violence, life-threatening to a mimic.
Note that whenever someone writes about gender in the NYTimes and comments are allowed, the top 10 comments by popularity always critique the article from the same perspective as you have: it's probably a mistake to transition children; biological sex is real; it's reasonable to reserve some spaces for biological women.
So, the problem isn't that liberals aren't exposed to these messages, it's that the leadership of the Times is still scared of being called anti-trans.
There is a point at which each of us need to decide to finish mourning what we've lost and to go forth and build something to take its place. This is decidedly difficult to do, particularly if the metaphorical "death" we've witness was a slow process , as the death of an institution usually is. (The timing for this pivot is tricky, as the "death" process that some of us must witness is ongoing, so what I say here probably calls for parents like me to compartmentalize because the child we knew hasn't completely been lost, but is still in the middle of the process of vivisecting herself or himself in accordance with this cultish believe system. But there's only so long one can function while in a state of horror.)
As we mourn whatever we've watched succumb to evil, watching the corruption wreak its bit-by-bit changes to the body, eliminating every trace of what we used to love about it, the intensity of our yearning for the qualities we watched being snuffed out makes it difficult to muster up the patience and optimism that we all need for the job of building something new and weathering its growing pains, tackling it's imperfections. Every little setback or small eruption of the inevitable human failings manifesting themselves within the networks we are now forming to start institutions capable (eventually) of replacing the zombified one we mourn will demoralize us into falling for that slippery slope fallacy . . . But we have to resist our weakened and raw state, resist the defeatism that tempts us to spend too much time reflecting on how something so remarkable that held promise for so much more greatness died (or is dying). Simple, but hard.
But, starting over is what made America, culturally and materially, rich. Yes, the Grey Lady's lumbering corpse today is both a menace and a source of disgust. But I think we've got to have faith that her replacement is on her way, and work towards that, if need be, one mind at a time. The truth will out . . .
"But there's only so long one can function while in a state of horror." As a mom who is also witnessing her daughter's captured state, I say AMEN to that.
Can I add a P.S.? I want to encourage anyone who's been living under the heel of this ideological boot that still seems so firmly planted on top of everything around us for many years, part of the solution on how to keep going, to at least exercise whatever of your remaining energy is left to protect the last few inches of your own structural integrity, is to volunteer in some capacity beyond just money, if you can (even if it's nothing more than as an anonymous proofreader, to know you're helping "your team" avoid public errors their critics will seize on is a balm. Even if you're not hooked up with a gender critical charity yet, try to find time to write write the occasional thank you note to some journalist whom you've noticed has managed to get something sensible into print. Do something to support the human beings who are in a position to be more public than you, even if it's to deliver some doughnuts to some people standing up in front of a courthouse in your neck of the woods -- something to express yourself positively to someone.). I am convinced that Lisa and all the other writers who've maintained their faith in the tenets of the original church of journalism, currently striking out on their own (whether by choice or or not) in small boats on Substack and other platforms, constitute the beginnings of what has to eventually replace the establishment press zombies, like the NYT and Washington Post (that recent Washington Post piece was surreal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/12/28/transgender-female-athlete-competition-trump/ ). Maybe Social Media was a conveyer or poison to our children, but it's high time we each leveraged it to offer free labor to those organizations and individuals who are using social media to help get our culture back onto the healthier footing that any representational democracy requires -- to do (as Lisa put it years ago) their f*cking jobs -- what those toxic mimics of journalism ceased doing long ago.
They are never going to get it because they just don't want to get it. They would rather hurt people than admit they were wrong. This is today's American left.
No, I don't think so. I think progressives really do believe they are helping people with all of this gender stuff. I'm not a progessive--a proud liberal, thanks--but for years I went along with gender-woo because I thought that's what a good person did. I finally had my own trans tipping point in 2020, but I'm sympathetic to those who have not...yet.
Gender ideologues are true believers, and I think they are WAY scarier than cynics. In my fifty-plus years on this planet, I have seen more harm done by those who were SURE they are right, than by those who don't care if they are wrong.
“…the news sections were offering opinions while the opinion section was offering reporting.” Boy, does that sum it up.
It is precisely the independent perspective of someone who isn't embedded in a community who will have the clarity and freedom to report the truth. This point seems to be completely lost on the modern left.