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.
We so appreciate you Kara. Just in case you didn't see my above comment, here's what an Ulster County Executive replied when I brought up my serious concerns for women and children in our county:
"I am in receipt of your correspondence of December 17 and 19 respectively. Please know that I am very much concerned about the safety, dignity and well-being of all Ulster County residents. I also note that gender identity and expression are protected under the New York State Constitution and in NYS Human Rights Law, and the County adheres to these laws.
I wonder if you can sue New York for infringement on your religious liberty?
Gender identity is a 21st Century pseudo-religion, with the "gender identity" as a mystical and unverifiable "soul" and the State is upholding and protecting belief in gender identity over and against those of us who wish to be free from gender and from state-sponsored beliefs about gender. You should sue, since you got this brush-off from Metzger sue her.
It absolutely is infringement, but not enough there for a lawsuit. If she sent the police after me for the "crime of misgendering," I'd probably have a case. Thanks.
I love so many writers on substack about this issue. Lisa, Kara Danska, LGB Courage Coalition, Informed Dissent, Andrew Sullivan and so many others. I would like to financially support with a paid subscription but I cannot do that for all.
Is there any universe that you could all join forces, merge subscribers, and curate posts under one umbrella? One paid subscription is more doable for a person to purchase. Could you come together and create a “the free press” of sorts for gender/sex issues?
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.
The problem is also that the readers liking those top 10 comments are equally scared of being called anti-trans, and that won't change until the Times itself makes it clear that those views are allowed.
Absolutely. It took me a while to even talk honestly about my views with my family, and my kids probably still think I'm hopelessly regressive, and I mainly write under a nom-de-plume here.
Exactly, transing kids and males in women's spaces are the two OpEd types that get seriously pushback in the NYTimes Readers Choice comment section. It's different than just about any other opEd type where as you would expect they all fall into line with the prevailing liberal orthodoxy.
Lot's of people are aware (women's sports is a 80/20 issue after all). It's just our elites and cultural/political gatekeepers are captured this insane ideology.
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.
Thanks for making this comment section open. I'm going to copy in Jen Metzger's reply to my serious concerns for special needs students, trans widows and detransitioners here:
"I am in receipt of your correspondence of December 17 and 19 respectively. Please know that I am very much concerned about the safety, dignity and well-being of all Ulster County residents. I also note that gender identity and expression are protected under the New York State Constitution and in NYS Human Rights Law, and the County adheres to these laws.
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 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 of 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.
I agree with this 100% You make a crucial point about their willingness to publish Andrew Sullivan--yes he's gay, but he's also conservative and a devout Catholic. So they allow that lane, as they allow Ross Douthat to have a regular piece. These men are both older too. They do not really challenge the orthodoxy of the left. "Let the old white dinosaurs rattle on for the sake of free speech, we all know they are out touch." They fired Pamela Paul, they will not publish Kara Dansky or you, all of which pisses me off. It may need to be someone younger and gay and male like Ben Appel, so I hope he tries too. It's so frustrating and it's painful, but at least things are always changing. We never know how or when a shift may happen. Lisa, thank you so much for everything you do, and here's to hope in 2026.
I was told that Pamela Paul's top notch reporting wasn't reliable because it was in the opinion section (by people who didn't want to believe it, of course).
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 witnessed 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.
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 think you are on the head with watching from whence the money flows. There are clearly highly funded groups and wealthy individuals who are hiding their identities while supporting the "Gender Dysphoria" movement. My question: is Left/Right the proper framing? Especially with the emergence of the Uniparty I tend to always look further. I draw back and ponder, who are those who are pushing the depopulation movement and where and whether they are exercising their power through money and other forms of influence. This makes sense logically, since one of the primary effects of medical transition, in either direction, is non-reversible sterility.
You're right that it is not a Left/Right issue. I only bring this up when right-wingers blame the left. A huge amount of the money is coming from their own RIGHT WING.
Jennifer Bilek has followed all the money, and she publicizes that information on her website:
I greatly appreciate your work, Lisa. And you, Kara. And all of you people that say something, write something, and make the world a better place.
NYT is hopeless. I doubt they will change their mission, not with the current ownership, board, editorial staff. Perhaps they will continue to make baby steps--to appear reasonable?
“In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Andrew Rosenthal, the Times's editorial page editor since 2007, explained why he sought to build on the paper's advocacy for LGBT rights. “One of the great things about an editorial page is that you can decide to make a big deal out of something, and we decided to make a big deal out of transgender equality,” he said
“There has been progress in this area," Rosenthal said in a phone call, "but there is a long way to go. This is not a front-burner issue for people, and we hope to make it one. We want policy makers to read this and think about policies they need to change."
LGBT advocates and readers welcomed the coverage.”
My blue bubble friend group considers NYT the final word in truth. They are totally unaware of what is really happening with “GAC”—for example, there is a current investigation of Seattle Children’s by HHS. They would consider this anti-trans and would consider the allegations false.
Do they read the same Substacks that I do? No. Do they want me to send them links to Substacks? No.
(I do have a friend that constantly sends me pieces by Heather Cox Richardson.)
Katie Kingsbury is now the gatekeeper. She isn’t going to spill the trans beans.
Because?
The because refers to my trans-fried brain. I see trans everywhere now, since losing my daughter to this cult. I often suspect people are trans. It’s gotten to the point where I may start tackling people to do a cheek swab or pants them.
Because when the Gray Lady doesn’t tell the truth, we will find a way to reveal it.
Agree. The NYT could report accurately and what they have done is horrible, especially given their influence and (mostly) misinformation. As part of their influence, anyone who knows what is going on in blue states and opens their mouth about it becomes an instant pariah, as you've experienced and reported.
But another route is the medical societies. They're the ones whose mission is to heal, to do no harm. They're the ones claiming they don't want government intervention in the patient-doctor relationship.
They're also the ones who are not providing trustworthy guidelines or even accurate information to their members. (See formal analysis in, e.g., the Cass commissioned York systematic review on guidelines, part 1.) The ones who mischaracterized the HHS report (apparently before reading it) and then ducked the chance to formally critique it (one possible reason is they couldn't find anything worth critiquing--the only ones who tried, the APA, critiqued mostly the absence of the methodology for the rigorous umbrella review...which was in the report but somehow missed by the reviewers).
Where is the session on the Cass Review final report and the HHS report at the AAP annual meeting? The Cass Review appeared about 1 1/2 *years* before the AAP's meeting this year.
How about something about it at the Endocrine Society?
Or how about the journals, which keep printing articles full of "life-saving" (gender interventions aren't shown to be, we know, why don't they??) claims. By MD's who seem to not even know the facts about the interventions they are pushing for.The mission of academic research journals includes funneling down the research based on rigor and checking for accuracy. They've abdicated.
Where is an accurate article about the Cass Review in NEJM?
I found one, plus the authors' response to rebuttal, in JAMA. I only found one.
The HHS report spells out all the lost chances. And they continue. The chances continue. It's not like new evidence is finding anything different!
They are all waiting. I don't know what it will take. They have the medical evidence, the anecdotes, the research, the systematic reviews. All of them do. All claim to be truth-telling.
I think all of them are waiting for the other to act. Let someone else do it. Someone spoke about this, policy vs on the ground action. Maybe Sapir. They see that Trump is pushing policies and figure change will happen anyhow and that they will sit it out. They can get cover and complain but know that it was taken care of. By pinning it upon a political battle, my party can even pretend it is protecting these kids, but it is protecting them from getting evidence based medical care (rah! way to go, team! how many kids were badly harmed by my party today?!).
While they wait, destruction continues, hormones, double mastectomies, vaginoplasties of kids who have not thought it through at all, but who will have a lifetime ahead of them after they realize they've been had. And the parents whose kids are gone....families torn to pieces.
You put a lot of faith in humanity to live by principles even when the costs are high. Why would they change when there are mostly painful consequences for doing so and continued rewards for staying the course? Their world endorses a social justice machiavelianism where any means can be forgiven as long as they are said to be in service of a just cause. The liberal journalism class is completely insulated from any direct consequences of obfuscating, telling partial truths, suppressing counter information, and repeating talking points. Until there is any meaningful consequence for them for having an incorrect or incomplete accounting of the situation, why would they care?
Lisa, what you have heard about the Dem autopsy? Can we expect it to be leaked? I feel certain this was one of the explosive issues they decided would not benefit from open airing.
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.
And the ones who acted on it, and on their children's bodies (or other people's children, shame on you), those people have a horrible harsh reality to face. But they have no idea right now.
I was friends with a trans woman I'll call Connie, whom I had known when he was Carl. Anyway, Connie and I were talking, and I said that, in dark moments, I wondered if my straight friends secretly wondered if I had AIDS. Connie said she wondered if her "cis" friends really believed she was a woman, and in that moment the part of my brain I'd been suppressing burst free and said, "No, you do NOT believe that." After that, I could no longer ignore my doubts, and I started listening to people like Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock and, naturally, LSD.
Once again, a Republican has not bothered to research which Pritzker I named.
James Pritzker has NEVER backed Democrats. He has ALWAYS backed Republicans, including Trump in 2016. He gave up on Trump as not sufficiently subservient to his transgenderism lobby and began backing Republicans against him in revenge.
James Pritzker is always and forever a Republican. And HE is the Pritzker financing the transgenderism lobby, not his Democratic cousin JB. Along with Conservative Canadian mining mogul Robert Quartermain.
I wish you Republicans would look these men up before erroneously shooting off your mouths on the Internet.
You do understand this information is easy to find, don't you? From 2020 on, his donations went almost exclusively to Democrats and the Democrat party.
Unfortunately, you are absolutely correct, Lisa, that liberal opinion will not change until the NYT starts covering transgender issues in a factual, objective manner "without fear or favor." For liberal readers, the Times is the Bible. For journalists at other outlets, it it the ultimate arbiter of what is newsworthy. I recently heard from a gender critical reporter in a west coast newsroom that colleagues take their cues from the NYT. More than once I heard editors at NPR demand that reporters cover a story they'd seen in the NYT -- the same story they had turned down when their own reporter pitched it weeks before.
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!!!
We so appreciate you Kara. Just in case you didn't see my above comment, here's what an Ulster County Executive replied when I brought up my serious concerns for women and children in our county:
"I am in receipt of your correspondence of December 17 and 19 respectively. Please know that I am very much concerned about the safety, dignity and well-being of all Ulster County residents. I also note that gender identity and expression are protected under the New York State Constitution and in NYS Human Rights Law, and the County adheres to these laws.
Respectfully,
Jen Metzger (She/Her/Hers)"
I wonder if you can sue New York for infringement on your religious liberty?
Gender identity is a 21st Century pseudo-religion, with the "gender identity" as a mystical and unverifiable "soul" and the State is upholding and protecting belief in gender identity over and against those of us who wish to be free from gender and from state-sponsored beliefs about gender. You should sue, since you got this brush-off from Metzger sue her.
It absolutely is infringement, but not enough there for a lawsuit. If she sent the police after me for the "crime of misgendering," I'd probably have a case. Thanks.
Yeah, I get these from my representatives, too, when they both to reply.
I just sent it to Christopher Rufo. I suggest we find commentators who can put out a rebuttal to a larger audience. Thanks
Excellent point, which I second!
Thanks, I am indefagitable--most of the time.
I love so many writers on substack about this issue. Lisa, Kara Danska, LGB Courage Coalition, Informed Dissent, Andrew Sullivan and so many others. I would like to financially support with a paid subscription but I cannot do that for all.
Is there any universe that you could all join forces, merge subscribers, and curate posts under one umbrella? One paid subscription is more doable for a person to purchase. Could you come together and create a “the free press” of sorts for gender/sex issues?
I’m so impressed and inspired by all of you!
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.
The problem is also that the readers liking those top 10 comments are equally scared of being called anti-trans, and that won't change until the Times itself makes it clear that those views are allowed.
Absolutely. It took me a while to even talk honestly about my views with my family, and my kids probably still think I'm hopelessly regressive, and I mainly write under a nom-de-plume here.
Same here and on X (minimalist1969). I just don't need that hassle from strangers trying to get me fired from my job or whatever.
Exactly, transing kids and males in women's spaces are the two OpEd types that get seriously pushback in the NYTimes Readers Choice comment section. It's different than just about any other opEd type where as you would expect they all fall into line with the prevailing liberal orthodoxy.
Lot's of people are aware (women's sports is a 80/20 issue after all). It's just our elites and cultural/political gatekeepers are captured this insane ideology.
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.
Gotta admire the creative strategies that animals evolve. Too bad people forget that we are animals and that means something.
That we are animals, and that culture is its own evolutionary system are the things which are most rejected by people.
Paraphilias, such autogynephilia, often come in clusters and often with added Cluster B personality disorders like Narcissistic Personilty Disorder.
In a major way, don’t they
Sufeitzy comments the same, word for word, across GC 'stack, so you can be sure that it'll be kept up.
Thanks for making this comment section open. I'm going to copy in Jen Metzger's reply to my serious concerns for special needs students, trans widows and detransitioners here:
"I am in receipt of your correspondence of December 17 and 19 respectively. Please know that I am very much concerned about the safety, dignity and well-being of all Ulster County residents. I also note that gender identity and expression are protected under the New York State Constitution and in NYS Human Rights Law, and the County adheres to these laws.
Respectfully,
Jen Metzger (She/Her/Hers)"
One tries to be consistent
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 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 of 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.
I agree with this 100% You make a crucial point about their willingness to publish Andrew Sullivan--yes he's gay, but he's also conservative and a devout Catholic. So they allow that lane, as they allow Ross Douthat to have a regular piece. These men are both older too. They do not really challenge the orthodoxy of the left. "Let the old white dinosaurs rattle on for the sake of free speech, we all know they are out touch." They fired Pamela Paul, they will not publish Kara Dansky or you, all of which pisses me off. It may need to be someone younger and gay and male like Ben Appel, so I hope he tries too. It's so frustrating and it's painful, but at least things are always changing. We never know how or when a shift may happen. Lisa, thank you so much for everything you do, and here's to hope in 2026.
It stays within the right wing/religious story that they decided they would report. All the news that fits within their predetermined narrative.
I am watching children's bodies be destroyed because they will not do their job.
They simply won't report the truth.
“…the news sections were offering opinions while the opinion section was offering reporting.” Boy, does that sum it up.
I was told that Pamela Paul's top notch reporting wasn't reliable because it was in the opinion section (by people who didn't want to believe it, of course).
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 witnessed 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.
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.
Please talk to Conservative Canadian Robert Quartermain and Republican billionaire James Pritzker on the modern right.
They're two of the tiny handful of women-hating men who invented and are now financing the transgenderism lobby.
Do they represent the modern right? Because their money is right-wing money, and they ARE the transgenderism lobby.
I think you are on the head with watching from whence the money flows. There are clearly highly funded groups and wealthy individuals who are hiding their identities while supporting the "Gender Dysphoria" movement. My question: is Left/Right the proper framing? Especially with the emergence of the Uniparty I tend to always look further. I draw back and ponder, who are those who are pushing the depopulation movement and where and whether they are exercising their power through money and other forms of influence. This makes sense logically, since one of the primary effects of medical transition, in either direction, is non-reversible sterility.
You're right that it is not a Left/Right issue. I only bring this up when right-wingers blame the left. A huge amount of the money is coming from their own RIGHT WING.
Jennifer Bilek has followed all the money, and she publicizes that information on her website:
https://www.the11thhourblog.com/
Thanks.
I greatly appreciate your work, Lisa. And you, Kara. And all of you people that say something, write something, and make the world a better place.
NYT is hopeless. I doubt they will change their mission, not with the current ownership, board, editorial staff. Perhaps they will continue to make baby steps--to appear reasonable?
A reminder from the history of trans-promoting:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/the-new-york-times-launched-a-series-of-editorials-on-transg
“In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Andrew Rosenthal, the Times's editorial page editor since 2007, explained why he sought to build on the paper's advocacy for LGBT rights. “One of the great things about an editorial page is that you can decide to make a big deal out of something, and we decided to make a big deal out of transgender equality,” he said
“There has been progress in this area," Rosenthal said in a phone call, "but there is a long way to go. This is not a front-burner issue for people, and we hope to make it one. We want policy makers to read this and think about policies they need to change."
LGBT advocates and readers welcomed the coverage.”
My blue bubble friend group considers NYT the final word in truth. They are totally unaware of what is really happening with “GAC”—for example, there is a current investigation of Seattle Children’s by HHS. They would consider this anti-trans and would consider the allegations false.
Do they read the same Substacks that I do? No. Do they want me to send them links to Substacks? No.
(I do have a friend that constantly sends me pieces by Heather Cox Richardson.)
Katie Kingsbury is now the gatekeeper. She isn’t going to spill the trans beans.
Because?
The because refers to my trans-fried brain. I see trans everywhere now, since losing my daughter to this cult. I often suspect people are trans. It’s gotten to the point where I may start tackling people to do a cheek swab or pants them.
Because when the Gray Lady doesn’t tell the truth, we will find a way to reveal it.
Agree. The NYT could report accurately and what they have done is horrible, especially given their influence and (mostly) misinformation. As part of their influence, anyone who knows what is going on in blue states and opens their mouth about it becomes an instant pariah, as you've experienced and reported.
But another route is the medical societies. They're the ones whose mission is to heal, to do no harm. They're the ones claiming they don't want government intervention in the patient-doctor relationship.
They're also the ones who are not providing trustworthy guidelines or even accurate information to their members. (See formal analysis in, e.g., the Cass commissioned York systematic review on guidelines, part 1.) The ones who mischaracterized the HHS report (apparently before reading it) and then ducked the chance to formally critique it (one possible reason is they couldn't find anything worth critiquing--the only ones who tried, the APA, critiqued mostly the absence of the methodology for the rigorous umbrella review...which was in the report but somehow missed by the reviewers).
Where is the session on the Cass Review final report and the HHS report at the AAP annual meeting? The Cass Review appeared about 1 1/2 *years* before the AAP's meeting this year.
How about something about it at the Endocrine Society?
Or how about the journals, which keep printing articles full of "life-saving" (gender interventions aren't shown to be, we know, why don't they??) claims. By MD's who seem to not even know the facts about the interventions they are pushing for.The mission of academic research journals includes funneling down the research based on rigor and checking for accuracy. They've abdicated.
Where is an accurate article about the Cass Review in NEJM?
I found one, plus the authors' response to rebuttal, in JAMA. I only found one.
The HHS report spells out all the lost chances. And they continue. The chances continue. It's not like new evidence is finding anything different!
They are all waiting. I don't know what it will take. They have the medical evidence, the anecdotes, the research, the systematic reviews. All of them do. All claim to be truth-telling.
I think all of them are waiting for the other to act. Let someone else do it. Someone spoke about this, policy vs on the ground action. Maybe Sapir. They see that Trump is pushing policies and figure change will happen anyhow and that they will sit it out. They can get cover and complain but know that it was taken care of. By pinning it upon a political battle, my party can even pretend it is protecting these kids, but it is protecting them from getting evidence based medical care (rah! way to go, team! how many kids were badly harmed by my party today?!).
While they wait, destruction continues, hormones, double mastectomies, vaginoplasties of kids who have not thought it through at all, but who will have a lifetime ahead of them after they realize they've been had. And the parents whose kids are gone....families torn to pieces.
When are they going to do the right thing?
Thank you for all you do!
You put a lot of faith in humanity to live by principles even when the costs are high. Why would they change when there are mostly painful consequences for doing so and continued rewards for staying the course? Their world endorses a social justice machiavelianism where any means can be forgiven as long as they are said to be in service of a just cause. The liberal journalism class is completely insulated from any direct consequences of obfuscating, telling partial truths, suppressing counter information, and repeating talking points. Until there is any meaningful consequence for them for having an incorrect or incomplete accounting of the situation, why would they care?
Lisa, what you have heard about the Dem autopsy? Can we expect it to be leaked? I feel certain this was one of the explosive issues they decided would not benefit from open airing.
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.
Yes, I believe they are misinformed.
And the ones who acted on it, and on their children's bodies (or other people's children, shame on you), those people have a horrible harsh reality to face. But they have no idea right now.
You might as well be saying the earth is flat.
What led to your tipping point, or what changed your mind?
I will make a long story short.
I was friends with a trans woman I'll call Connie, whom I had known when he was Carl. Anyway, Connie and I were talking, and I said that, in dark moments, I wondered if my straight friends secretly wondered if I had AIDS. Connie said she wondered if her "cis" friends really believed she was a woman, and in that moment the part of my brain I'd been suppressing burst free and said, "No, you do NOT believe that." After that, I could no longer ignore my doubts, and I started listening to people like Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock and, naturally, LSD.
Please stop trying to blame this on the values of the left.
The transgenderism lobby is largely financed by Robert Quartermain, a Conservative Canadian, and Republican billionaire James Pritzker.
If you want to have a word about the values of the right with these two men who ARE the transgenderism lobby, that would be terrific.
Thanks.
James Pritzker was a major Biden donor and has been backing Democrats since 2019. His cousin is the Democratic governor of Illinois.
Once again, a Republican has not bothered to research which Pritzker I named.
James Pritzker has NEVER backed Democrats. He has ALWAYS backed Republicans, including Trump in 2016. He gave up on Trump as not sufficiently subservient to his transgenderism lobby and began backing Republicans against him in revenge.
James Pritzker is always and forever a Republican. And HE is the Pritzker financing the transgenderism lobby, not his Democratic cousin JB. Along with Conservative Canadian mining mogul Robert Quartermain.
I wish you Republicans would look these men up before erroneously shooting off your mouths on the Internet.
You do understand this information is easy to find, don't you? From 2020 on, his donations went almost exclusively to Democrats and the Democrat party.
Donor Lookup • OpenSecrets https://share.google/B49IPppUcWW1Lt4m1
Thank you, Lisa, for continuing to be nuanced AF. Sending you and yours the very best wishes for the New Year, and yes, we shall keep on keepin’ on.
They don’t consider themselves journalists. They consider themselves activists and influencers. Just like many teachers and therapists
Unfortunately, you are absolutely correct, Lisa, that liberal opinion will not change until the NYT starts covering transgender issues in a factual, objective manner "without fear or favor." For liberal readers, the Times is the Bible. For journalists at other outlets, it it the ultimate arbiter of what is newsworthy. I recently heard from a gender critical reporter in a west coast newsroom that colleagues take their cues from the NYT. More than once I heard editors at NPR demand that reporters cover a story they'd seen in the NYT -- the same story they had turned down when their own reporter pitched it weeks before.