1) yet again, the NYTimes has published a lengthy "raising concerns about trans" article based largely on anecdotal stories & evidence, while ignoring the big picture & actual statistics – a tactic that I dissect in this essay (w/100+ references)... juliaserano.medium.com/gender-affir...
NOTE: this essay is a 15 minute read. If it’s listed as longer than that, it’s because it contains a list of over 100 references at the…
Thank you for posting a link to your article, i'm going to include it in the letter i'm sending to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith regarding her newly-announced terrible policies about trans care for young people. (Unsurprisingly, they mimic similar policies being enacted by many US states)
Honestly, if we're gonna try to ban gender-affirming care because 1 to 3% regret their transition, then we should obviously outlaw marriage, the regret rate of which is about 50%.
They also decided to pitch it with an email blast which actually admits they know both that this is a tiny population and that they know the effects of their coverage. Really cool stuff.
2) for today's "raising concerns about trans" article, NYTimes tapped Pamela Paul, who's basically become their in-house anti-trans activist – many of her past anti-trans articles are discussed & critiqued here: fair.org/home/pamela-...
By giving Paul a platform, the New York Times is feeding a grievance-based ideology that directly harms trans and other marginalized people.
it’s very fitting that they published this on Groundhog Day because it feels like we’ve lived through this a million times
I mean what else do you expect by the oligarch's paper of record?