I have to wonder if writers not being “interested” is simply fear of the backlash instead of actual disinterest in the topic.
Hilarious that the editors then characterize the backlash as “not a conspiracy” in order to dismiss the fear that the topic is being avoided for the wrong reasons. That would undercut their self-image as bravely speaking truth to power!
I have to wonder if writers not being “interested” is simply fear of the backlash instead of actual disinterest in the topic.
Hilarious that the editors then characterize the backlash as “not a conspiracy” in order to dismiss the fear that the topic is being avoided for the wrong reasons. That would undercut their self-image as bravely speaking truth to power!
Undoubtedly, younger journalists inhabit a different culture regarding gender. They are steeped in it. They are also a part of culture that dare not question another person's "lived experience". I don't buy what the editors are saying. Not at all. They are intentionally suppressing gender medicine critical content. I hope that you will get some feedback from physicians at SEGM. I have heard that several have sent letters and Op-Eds to NYT. Result: not published.
I have to wonder if writers not being “interested” is simply fear of the backlash instead of actual disinterest in the topic.
Hilarious that the editors then characterize the backlash as “not a conspiracy” in order to dismiss the fear that the topic is being avoided for the wrong reasons. That would undercut their self-image as bravely speaking truth to power!
Undoubtedly, younger journalists inhabit a different culture regarding gender. They are steeped in it. They are also a part of culture that dare not question another person's "lived experience". I don't buy what the editors are saying. Not at all. They are intentionally suppressing gender medicine critical content. I hope that you will get some feedback from physicians at SEGM. I have heard that several have sent letters and Op-Eds to NYT. Result: not published.