Trans controvesy engulfs the NYT

[T'Chenka]

The NYT has platformed bad faith anti-trans propaganda, OBJECTIVELY. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the propaganda or whether it disgusts you. Denying that it's bad faith anti-trans propaganda is denying the truth.

[T'Chenka]

The NYT has platformed bad faith anti-trans propaganda, OBJECTIVELY. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the propaganda or whether it disgusts you. Denying that it's bad faith anti-trans propaganda is denying the truth.

Can you post these links to the articles that are anti-trans propaganda and bad faith?

Check Alben's thread from last week.

[T'Chenka]

The NYT has platformed bad faith anti-trans propaganda, OBJECTIVELY. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the propaganda or whether it disgusts you. Denying that it's bad faith anti-trans propaganda is denying the truth.

Can you post these links to the articles that are anti-trans propaganda and bad faith?

Check Alben's thread from last week.

That thread is seven pages long, why should lfromnj have to dig through 150+ posts to try and figure out which links you're referring to?  Why don't you just post the links to the articles and, ideally, include excerpts of the specific sections that you believe justify labeling them "anti-trans propaganda and bad faith."

I'm slightly busy right now, and I wouldn't usually go out of my way to try and convince a right winger of something they aren't going to be open-minded about anyways.

Anyways, the Alben thread is mostly about a bad faith transphobe lying and Rowling and spewing misleading propaganda about Rowling. Other articles written by that same author and others articles featured in the NYT (by different authors) that have "just asked questions" used misleading framing, misleading stats, unnecessary deadnaming in inappropriate context, etc. If LfromNJ wants to look up her articles or other "just asking questions" trans articles in NYT, he is free to do so.

[T'Chenka]

That thread is seven pages long, why should lfromnj have to dig through 150+ posts to try and figure out which links you're referring to?  Why don't you just post the links to the articles and, ideally, include excerpts of the specific sections that you believe justify labeling them "anti-trans propaganda and bad faith."

I'm slightly busy right now, and I wouldn't usually go out of my way to try and convince a right winger of something they aren't going to be open-minded about anyways.

Anyways, the Alben thread is mostly about a bad faith transphobe lying and Rowling and spewing misleading propaganda about Rowling. Other articles written by that same author and others are the NYT though have "just asked questions" using misleading framing, misleading stats, unnecessary deadnaming in inappropriate context, etc. If LfromNJ wants to look up her articles or other "just asking questions" trans articles in NYT, he is free to do so.

Oh, ok.  Well, it's a good thing he didn't go through all 150 of those points since even if he had found them, you were just teed up to say that it was other articles by the same author, not linked in the thread, that prove your point.

You must be fun at parties.

[T'Chenka]

I'm sorry but what do you guys want, a medal? Like Roman has said, other whistleblowers have said similar things. This needs to be investigated and if these clinics are not following best practices there should be consequences. If you want trans children's  rights to be protected in this country, you need to weed out the bad apple clinics

Many right wingers don't ACTUALLY want a bunch of investigations, because that would expose that 99% of these whistleblowers are full of s__t. By all means, investigate it all. Get it over with. The sooner we expose that the right wing is lying, the better.