This is extremely thought-provoking. The points you make in this newsletter really resonate w me today, after finishing reading How Madness Shaped History, by Chris Ferguson, last night. In the last chapter, he gets into ideological divides and virtue signaling and how none of it is really helpful. From the book: "Whenever a pressing social issue develops, one side seems to rush to one conclusion with the other then taking the opposing conclusion with irrational glee, each side proclaiming that working toward middle ground would amount to treason."
New Subscriber here. Your perspective and the links - especially the matter of medical intervention safety touched on in this and your more recent "Nothing is Clear" piece - are invaluable to me as a parent whose late-teenage, extremely-high-functioning-autistic son has, in the last several years, experienced a type of gender dysphoria.
I do have one criticism that you are likely aware of, but that I hope you will consider.
You title your piece, "What the Left Media Won't Report" and "None of this should be politicized." That's a politicized headline/subhead. Conservative news more often refers to major news outlets like the NYT as "left media" (or left wing, or left wing-infiltrated, or socialist, etc.); whereas actually left wing (or 'progressive' or 'left of liberal') news typically refers to big news outlets like the NYT as "corporate media."
I'll assert the NYT - despite its two conservative op ed columnists - is predominantly liberal and reliably Democratic (within which there is, of course, a spectrum of political positions, with the right well-represented). Therefore, when you call major news like the NYT "Left Media," you represent yourself - misrepresent yourself, I believe, since I believe you are politically liberal - as a right wing critic of supposedly 'left' media. To put it another way, the right wing calls outlets like the NYT (for example) "left wing" to 'red tag' and thereby debunk them - i.e., it's a legacy of McCarthyism, when the right could more easily attack liberal views by calling them communistic.
IMO, this article title makes it easier for right wing outlets to identify you as one of their own ("Davis Takes Down 'Left Media' Denial of Transgender Medicalization Risks!"); and easier for those particular trans advocacy positions you fairly criticize to dismiss you as right wing. ("Like Climate Denial Science, 'Left Media' Basher Davis Peddles Myth of Unclear Evidence!") This is, of course, the very opposite of the 'concerned/upset-but-as-regards-evidence-impartial-and-seeking-fair-free-discussion' pov I believe you (and even some left writers - Glenn Greenwald, e.g.) exemplify - one who seeks to rise above the polarization.
Yes, I know any discerning reader who gets beyond the headline may infer you're not right wing - but I'm concerned with readers who will take that headline out of context to either weaponize your writing on behalf of their attack on trans 'equality' rights (discussed in your recent CNN piece); or who will use a few out of context words to discredit you - in order to steer readers away from you. Sure the latter camp may do that anyway - but why make their work easier for them?
Therefore, may I suggest that -to avoid politicization, and because imo it's more accurate - you replace "Left Media" with the more neutral "Mainstream Media"? (And yes, I know you could say, 'But in our country, Democrats are the 'left' party and Republicans are the 'right' party - that's as far as the spectrum goes.' I reject that view because in 2016 43% of the Democratic electorate voted for Sanders in primaries - pointing to a near-half number of Democratic voters whose views stand well to the left of what you - in passing, at one point - also refer to as the "centrist" slant of mainstream media.) Civilly yours...
This is extremely thought-provoking. The points you make in this newsletter really resonate w me today, after finishing reading How Madness Shaped History, by Chris Ferguson, last night. In the last chapter, he gets into ideological divides and virtue signaling and how none of it is really helpful. From the book: "Whenever a pressing social issue develops, one side seems to rush to one conclusion with the other then taking the opposing conclusion with irrational glee, each side proclaiming that working toward middle ground would amount to treason."
Dear Lisa,
New Subscriber here. Your perspective and the links - especially the matter of medical intervention safety touched on in this and your more recent "Nothing is Clear" piece - are invaluable to me as a parent whose late-teenage, extremely-high-functioning-autistic son has, in the last several years, experienced a type of gender dysphoria.
I do have one criticism that you are likely aware of, but that I hope you will consider.
You title your piece, "What the Left Media Won't Report" and "None of this should be politicized." That's a politicized headline/subhead. Conservative news more often refers to major news outlets like the NYT as "left media" (or left wing, or left wing-infiltrated, or socialist, etc.); whereas actually left wing (or 'progressive' or 'left of liberal') news typically refers to big news outlets like the NYT as "corporate media."
I'll assert the NYT - despite its two conservative op ed columnists - is predominantly liberal and reliably Democratic (within which there is, of course, a spectrum of political positions, with the right well-represented). Therefore, when you call major news like the NYT "Left Media," you represent yourself - misrepresent yourself, I believe, since I believe you are politically liberal - as a right wing critic of supposedly 'left' media. To put it another way, the right wing calls outlets like the NYT (for example) "left wing" to 'red tag' and thereby debunk them - i.e., it's a legacy of McCarthyism, when the right could more easily attack liberal views by calling them communistic.
IMO, this article title makes it easier for right wing outlets to identify you as one of their own ("Davis Takes Down 'Left Media' Denial of Transgender Medicalization Risks!"); and easier for those particular trans advocacy positions you fairly criticize to dismiss you as right wing. ("Like Climate Denial Science, 'Left Media' Basher Davis Peddles Myth of Unclear Evidence!") This is, of course, the very opposite of the 'concerned/upset-but-as-regards-evidence-impartial-and-seeking-fair-free-discussion' pov I believe you (and even some left writers - Glenn Greenwald, e.g.) exemplify - one who seeks to rise above the polarization.
Yes, I know any discerning reader who gets beyond the headline may infer you're not right wing - but I'm concerned with readers who will take that headline out of context to either weaponize your writing on behalf of their attack on trans 'equality' rights (discussed in your recent CNN piece); or who will use a few out of context words to discredit you - in order to steer readers away from you. Sure the latter camp may do that anyway - but why make their work easier for them?
Therefore, may I suggest that -to avoid politicization, and because imo it's more accurate - you replace "Left Media" with the more neutral "Mainstream Media"? (And yes, I know you could say, 'But in our country, Democrats are the 'left' party and Republicans are the 'right' party - that's as far as the spectrum goes.' I reject that view because in 2016 43% of the Democratic electorate voted for Sanders in primaries - pointing to a near-half number of Democratic voters whose views stand well to the left of what you - in passing, at one point - also refer to as the "centrist" slant of mainstream media.) Civilly yours...
THANK YOU!