I wonder how much the role of fear plays in this problem: fear of being wrong, fear of being publicly shamed, fear of losing freedom, fear of losing safeguards, and so on.
Pro “gender affirmation” people fear losing the freedom to engage in body modification. It may be the logical outcome of a society focused on freedom to do whatever. Journalists assume any limits must be the result of bigotry, no other reason.
The recent NYT article on the enemies of DEI likewise doesn’t engage with good faith critiques of problems with DEI practices but instead paints critics as obvious bigots and crazies. So easy to do because there’s always a crazy on either side to trot out as deranged and worthless.
I’ve given up on mainstream news media altogether--thank you for continuing to report clearly and rationally on these issues.
I forgot to say that some editors told me that they weren't publishing much on it because writers weren't that interested. They told me not to see it as a conspiracy but just that there were many issues they cared about more. And then some who attempt it—Emily Bazelon, Katie Baker, Meaghan Twohey—never want to touch it again because of the backlash and the nastiness.
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 enjoy the writing but disagree with one point. “Just the facts” is the essence of the problem, and I’ve experienced versions of that for some time now in discussions.
Irrespective of the social fiction of “gender”, “Affirmation” therapy is quite literally a form of medical experimentation on minors performed without informed consent. They are not “losing” rights to care, there is no “right” to nonconsensual hormonal and physical mutilation. Males are not losing right the right to use women’s restrooms, there is no “right” to override sex-based privacy laws. There is no loss of “right” to provide incorrect documentation of sex on
Legal documents. There are many legal and social fictions we maintain - many “aunts” and “uncles” are not blood relatives, corporations are not actually “people”.
I am fully capable of discussing the concept of “uncle” and “sugar daddy” without being uncle-phobic or daddy-phobic. I’m certainly capable of being critical of corporate “person” status without being “corporate-phobic”. The fact is that discussing the social “gender” is not indicative of gender- or transphobia.
The debate is actually about personal feeling masquerading as facts. That’s quite literally the major part of this discussion.
One thing I learned decades ago in feminist critique, we are entitled to our own opinions and feelings, but we are not entitled to our own facts.
I recently watched the movie Denial, about a disgusting Holocaust denier who sues the professor who called him out for being just that. The issue raised by the professor in the beginning of the movie is whether there is ever a reason to debate the fact that the Holocaust happened - not why it happened, or how, or exactly the mechanics of it - but whether approximately 6 million Jews were systematically killed while many, many more were tortured in the most inhumane ways (and yes, there were Gypsies, gay people, some professors, and a few others who were also tortured and/or killed - but it was mostly Jews). The professor does not believe such a debate should happen, for good reason.
This relates to your article and to what is happening around the issues of sex and gender because trans activists use the hashtag "no debate," meaning that we cannot debate whether men can become women, or whether it is a good idea to chemically and/or surgically alter a body to appear as the opposite sex as a means of resolving a mental health issue of rejecting one's sexed body.
Quite obviously, debating whether the Holocaust happened is as ridiculous as debating whether I have a nose or live in the United States (both of which are true). These are hard facts and debating them is a complete waste of time, and tends to degrade our sense of reality. Specifically debating whether the Holocaust happened is meant to erase history - likely so that it can be repeated - but it is also erasing reality. Debating whether a trans woman (ie. a man) is a woman is almost the complete opposite, in that challenging the "trans women are women" mantra is calling for reality to prevail. Debating whether children should be mutilated, sterilized and made into life-long medical patients on the basis of distress over their biological sex (or what they think their biological sex may mean for them) is trying to remind people of the reality that children/teens and young vulnerable adults should not be making decisions that will impact their entire lives in potentially disastrous ways on the basis of a form of body dysmorphia.
When journalists fail to discuss these issues from the point of view of reality, when they fail to allow a "debate" on trans issues, they are no better than a Holocaust denier, seeking to deny reality for the sake of a detrimental political goal. While a Holocaust denier seeks to debate a known fact, journalists seek to repress debate of an absurd opinion. In both cases, reality is being destroyed for the sake of a harmful political agenda.
Excellent piece, Lisa. Your observation about MSM illustrates why the bullshit asymmetry principle persists in this space: "...most mainstream media paints those pushing back against gender identity as the batshit side, requiring far more evidence to support its arguments, and accepts those upholding it as believable, no matter how circular and unscientific their arguments." Despite the mountain of evidence built up over the past several years and the good faith efforts of many sane individuals, this insanity will persist as long as these MSM gatekeepers keep the gates closed and allow youth-driven demand to continue to increase.
"A psychological and medical protocol conceived and designed for a tiny population has expanded and been mapped onto a population it was never intended for."
And as you know, now that they've checked how some are doing past the average 8 year regret time, many of these carefully chosen kids are not doing well. Change of identity, sexual dysfunction, etc. Abbruzzese et Al 2023 described some of it.
The response is not that assessments are useless,they appear to be a way to detect some issues, but they certainly are insufficient as currently done.
It’s an issue that requires us to ask ourselves, with every new story or bit of information, “Is there something I am wrong about?”
Yes! Thank you, Lisa, for shining a light on that. To me, perhaps the most alarming about the ways in which gender and "gender affirming care" are reported in the mainstream media is how automatic it has all become - no questions, no debate, same old recycled terminology. I have a gazillion emails to "letters@nytimes.com" asking "have you thought about ___?", "have you read ____?" what about the views of ___?" Almost all unanswered (with thanks to Azeen Ghorayshi).
Thank you for articulating this so clearly.
I wonder how much the role of fear plays in this problem: fear of being wrong, fear of being publicly shamed, fear of losing freedom, fear of losing safeguards, and so on.
Pro “gender affirmation” people fear losing the freedom to engage in body modification. It may be the logical outcome of a society focused on freedom to do whatever. Journalists assume any limits must be the result of bigotry, no other reason.
The recent NYT article on the enemies of DEI likewise doesn’t engage with good faith critiques of problems with DEI practices but instead paints critics as obvious bigots and crazies. So easy to do because there’s always a crazy on either side to trot out as deranged and worthless.
I’ve given up on mainstream news media altogether--thank you for continuing to report clearly and rationally on these issues.
I forgot to say that some editors told me that they weren't publishing much on it because writers weren't that interested. They told me not to see it as a conspiracy but just that there were many issues they cared about more. And then some who attempt it—Emily Bazelon, Katie Baker, Meaghan Twohey—never want to touch it again because of the backlash and the nastiness.
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.
"Since the unofficial tagline of the pro-youth gender medicine movement is 'No debate,'"...
As I was literally told upon my political expulsion, "We know you think this is debatable, but it isn't."
I enjoy the writing but disagree with one point. “Just the facts” is the essence of the problem, and I’ve experienced versions of that for some time now in discussions.
Irrespective of the social fiction of “gender”, “Affirmation” therapy is quite literally a form of medical experimentation on minors performed without informed consent. They are not “losing” rights to care, there is no “right” to nonconsensual hormonal and physical mutilation. Males are not losing right the right to use women’s restrooms, there is no “right” to override sex-based privacy laws. There is no loss of “right” to provide incorrect documentation of sex on
Legal documents. There are many legal and social fictions we maintain - many “aunts” and “uncles” are not blood relatives, corporations are not actually “people”.
I am fully capable of discussing the concept of “uncle” and “sugar daddy” without being uncle-phobic or daddy-phobic. I’m certainly capable of being critical of corporate “person” status without being “corporate-phobic”. The fact is that discussing the social “gender” is not indicative of gender- or transphobia.
The debate is actually about personal feeling masquerading as facts. That’s quite literally the major part of this discussion.
One thing I learned decades ago in feminist critique, we are entitled to our own opinions and feelings, but we are not entitled to our own facts.
I recently watched the movie Denial, about a disgusting Holocaust denier who sues the professor who called him out for being just that. The issue raised by the professor in the beginning of the movie is whether there is ever a reason to debate the fact that the Holocaust happened - not why it happened, or how, or exactly the mechanics of it - but whether approximately 6 million Jews were systematically killed while many, many more were tortured in the most inhumane ways (and yes, there were Gypsies, gay people, some professors, and a few others who were also tortured and/or killed - but it was mostly Jews). The professor does not believe such a debate should happen, for good reason.
This relates to your article and to what is happening around the issues of sex and gender because trans activists use the hashtag "no debate," meaning that we cannot debate whether men can become women, or whether it is a good idea to chemically and/or surgically alter a body to appear as the opposite sex as a means of resolving a mental health issue of rejecting one's sexed body.
Quite obviously, debating whether the Holocaust happened is as ridiculous as debating whether I have a nose or live in the United States (both of which are true). These are hard facts and debating them is a complete waste of time, and tends to degrade our sense of reality. Specifically debating whether the Holocaust happened is meant to erase history - likely so that it can be repeated - but it is also erasing reality. Debating whether a trans woman (ie. a man) is a woman is almost the complete opposite, in that challenging the "trans women are women" mantra is calling for reality to prevail. Debating whether children should be mutilated, sterilized and made into life-long medical patients on the basis of distress over their biological sex (or what they think their biological sex may mean for them) is trying to remind people of the reality that children/teens and young vulnerable adults should not be making decisions that will impact their entire lives in potentially disastrous ways on the basis of a form of body dysmorphia.
When journalists fail to discuss these issues from the point of view of reality, when they fail to allow a "debate" on trans issues, they are no better than a Holocaust denier, seeking to deny reality for the sake of a detrimental political goal. While a Holocaust denier seeks to debate a known fact, journalists seek to repress debate of an absurd opinion. In both cases, reality is being destroyed for the sake of a harmful political agenda.
Excellent piece, Lisa. Your observation about MSM illustrates why the bullshit asymmetry principle persists in this space: "...most mainstream media paints those pushing back against gender identity as the batshit side, requiring far more evidence to support its arguments, and accepts those upholding it as believable, no matter how circular and unscientific their arguments." Despite the mountain of evidence built up over the past several years and the good faith efforts of many sane individuals, this insanity will persist as long as these MSM gatekeepers keep the gates closed and allow youth-driven demand to continue to increase.
This is excellent, Lisa. Thank you for laying out the journalistic problems so clearly.
"A psychological and medical protocol conceived and designed for a tiny population has expanded and been mapped onto a population it was never intended for."
And as you know, now that they've checked how some are doing past the average 8 year regret time, many of these carefully chosen kids are not doing well. Change of identity, sexual dysfunction, etc. Abbruzzese et Al 2023 described some of it.
The response is not that assessments are useless,they appear to be a way to detect some issues, but they certainly are insufficient as currently done.
Thank you!
It’s an issue that requires us to ask ourselves, with every new story or bit of information, “Is there something I am wrong about?”
Yes! Thank you, Lisa, for shining a light on that. To me, perhaps the most alarming about the ways in which gender and "gender affirming care" are reported in the mainstream media is how automatic it has all become - no questions, no debate, same old recycled terminology. I have a gazillion emails to "letters@nytimes.com" asking "have you thought about ___?", "have you read ____?" what about the views of ___?" Almost all unanswered (with thanks to Azeen Ghorayshi).