Trans controvesy engulfs the NYT

[Torie]

This issue seems to devour all who get to close to it, including the old Grey Lady now. No one is exempt.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/we-are-journalists-not-activists-nyt-reporters-slam-union-for-backing-critics-of-trans-coverage/

In this iteration, the ball has been bounced back by management, and now the Guild union is pursuing the theory that the newspaper's coverage of the issue has created a hostile work place environment. The 1st Amendment and labor law collide or something.

[DaleCooper]

It's getting tough to argue that this isn't the most dangerous issue for people in media to talk honestly about. Israel-Palestine might even be less contentious at this point.

[Alben Barkley]

The only people for whom the NYT is a “hostile workplace environment” are the journalists who did their jobs honestly and were piled on by their own colleagues, coordinating with an activist organization, for it.

[7,052,770]

It's getting tough to argue that this isn't the most dangerous issue for people in media to talk honestly about. Israel-Palestine might even be less contentious at this point.

It's not just the media. Last year Texas declared that being trans is the same thing as being a child abuser and started taking kids away from trans parents. It's so much more dangerous to simply BE trans in the 2020s than it was last decade thanks to Republican politicians with a twisted agenda, and milquetoast centrists like New York Times with the constant need to "both sides" the issue.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I’ve been seeing people dunk on Jeremy Peters for his “we are journalists not activists” line due to his infamous Charlottesville article were he treated a Neo-Nazi participant as a local observer

[lfromnj]

It's getting tough to argue that this isn't the most dangerous issue for people in media to talk honestly about. Israel-Palestine might even be less contentious at this point.

The most dangerous is talking about the prime of a woman

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

"Trans controversy" is a deceptive and dangerous framing, because it legitimizes something that does not deserve it (something the NYT is good at). The NYT is not "struggling with trans controversy",  the NYT operates with a lot of anti-trans bigotry.

[Ferguson97]

Reposting this article from The Onion (It Is Journalism’s Sacred Duty To Endanger The Lives Of As Many Trans People As Possible), which perfectly critiques how stupid and harmful these "I'm just asking questions" esque articles are.

[Not Me, Us]

It really is insane how common open hatred and discrimination toward trans people has become. Why anyone would concern themselves with the personal choices of others is unfathomable to me.

[free my dawg]

The only people for whom the NYT is a “hostile workplace environment” are the journalists who did their jobs honestly and were piled on by their own colleagues, coordinating with an activist organization, for it.

So not people like Pamela Paul. Got it.

Let's look into the journalist Paul cited, EJ Rosetta. The more you look into her, the more awful she is and the more I'm convinced she is actually lying to push her agenda:

* She said that there was "only one word" in the English language for cis, and even then it wasn't even derived from the same root as "cisgender.
* Doxing a former friend for calling her out on her anti-trans posts.
* Fabricating articles full of unsourced, uncited news, about "cancel culture" and trans activists being unreasonable.
* Retweeting false flag troll ops in order to push an agenda.

Between that and the cherry-picked, out-of-context Rowling quotes, I think she's pushing her own agenda. It's a shame because you can effectively articulate your points without resorting to blatant deception. "Nobody deserves to be doxed for their political beliefs" or "I think she's done a lot of great work for the world and I think the bad outweighs whatever she said" is a perfectly reasonable point to make. But this feeds into the narrative about thoughtcrime and cancel culture, so she had to lie.

Let's all put aside our opinions and the Discourse for a second. On an objective lens, the Paul piece is bad journalism. The failing New York Times's defense of it shows how far the newspaper has fallen.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Lol whenever I hear some one was “targeted by activist organizations” it’s code for “I said a bigoted thing and now I’m facing consequences which I think is unfair”

[7,052,770]

Let's look into the journalist Paul cited, EJ Rosetta. The more you look into her, the more awful she is and the more I'm convinced she is actually lying to push her agenda:

* She said that there was "only one word" in the English language for cis, and even then it wasn't even derived from the same root as "cisgender.
* Doxing a former friend for calling her out on her anti-trans posts.
* Fabricating articles full of unsourced, uncited news, about "cancel culture" and trans activists being unreasonable.
* Retweeting false flag troll ops in order to push an agenda.

She has also apparently been denounced by the anti-trans crowd for threatening to doxx an anti-trans leader's children and falsely accusing her husband of sexual misconduct, all over a dispute over money. Just an all-around nutjob that nobody on any side takes seriously.

You can read more detail in this thread:
https://twitter.com/AidanCTweets/status/1618737075301523456

[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.

[lfromnj]

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?

[GeneralMacArthur]

The NYT is doing a great disservice to its readers by platforming these kinds of weirdos as the voice of moderation in the trans issues debate.

Open up any NYT comments section on this issue and you will find virtually unanimity from the very liberal reader base of the NYT on the following position:

• Trans rights are human rights and trans people deserve equal rights and fair, non-discriminatory treatment
• While most people do not actually believe that a trans woman is a woman, in nearly 100% of circumstances they are willing to treat her like one out of politeness and respect for her chosen identity
• Where they draw the line is on being asked to change society, in certain disruptive ways, to indulge this rejection of the realities of biological sex
• They are concerned by the extent to which kids these days are being hammered, especially on social media, by the message that being trans is a cool identity to adopt and if they exhibit any gender-nonconforming characteristics, they must be trans
• They are disturbed by the bullying, cancel culture, and extremism that has come to characterize the trans rights activism crowd
• However, they are far, far more disturbed with the efforts by right-wing actors to dehumanize and demonize trans people, and Republican politicians using this cultural moment to enact legislation stripping trans people of basic human rights, attacking kids who think they might be trans, and exhibiting ideological control over schools.
• They may enjoy antagonizing those right-wing actors by mocking them over their claims that they were "cancelled" for very real hate speech and bigotry, even though they too are concerned by the cancel culture's impact, since it impacts many more people who are not hateful right-wing bigots.

This seems to me to be a pretty reasonable position and one that a majority of Americans agree with.

However, the thing about this position is that the people who espouse it are kind of a silent majority.  Nobody is very vocal about this, in part because they do not want to be characterized as "anti-trans."  So the main people who are vocal about this are the people who are willing to be characterized in that way, which often leads them to align themselves with right-wingers, bigots, morons, and other unsavory characters.

Even though someone like Pamela Paul may not be a bigot herself, and the article she wrote was fairly sensible and not bigoted in any way, her willingness to identify as a bulwark against radical trans activists has led her to some strange bedfellows, like EJ Rosetta, that make her a poor talking head for the positions she espouses.

The counterpoint to this, though, is that the activists trying to cancel her and cancel the NYT aren't making the same point I'm making.  They're claiming that her article was bigoted, hateful, and promoting violence against trans people -- which it absolutely was not.  So even though I personally agree that Pamela Paul should not be writing articles for the NYT, I do not agree with those activists and hope they fail.  Even though our goal is ostensibly the same on paper, I think their actual goal is to just exert control and frighten the NYT away from platforming anyone else who might espouse such viewpoints, even a much more savory commentator than Paul.

[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.

[GeneralMacArthur]

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."

[lfromnj]

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 looked through the thread.  One article was the in defense of Jk Rowling which wasn't a reporting article but an editorial.  The main protests against the NYT regards certain journalist who report on practice within the transgender care industry so I am still looking for an article which is anti trans propaganda and bad faith.

[GeneralMacArthur]

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 looked through the thread.  One article was the in defense of Jk Rowling which wasn't a reporting article but an editorial.  The main protests against the NYT regards certain journalist who report on practice within the transgender care industry so I am still looking for an article which is anti trans propaganda and bad faith.

And even with the JK Rowling thing, most people who attack her use "GLAAD also said JK Rowling was bad" as their appeal to authority.  But I looked through the GLAAD article about her and it's just a whole bunch of nothing.  The whole thing is just a giant tree of "this person is bad because this thing said so" or "this person is bad because they associate with this other person who is bad" and when you actually get to the leaves of the tree, which is an arduous task on its own, all too often the result is just something really minor, meaningless or stupid.  But go high enough back up the tree and you inevitably get loaded terms like "bigot" "hatemonger" "transphobic" "violence" "upset by trans people existing" and so on.

[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.

[GeneralMacArthur]

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 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.

[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.

[7,052,770]

The whole thing is just a giant tree of "this person is bad because this thing said so" or "this person is bad because they associate with this other person who is bad" and when you actually get to the leaves of the tree, which is an arduous task on its own, all too often the result is just something really minor, meaningless or stupid.

You're willfully burying your head in the sand at this point. We have repeatedly linked very specific and documented things that Rowling has said and done, and it's not just feelings or vibes. If you want to argue that she's not as bad as Raichik or Walsh, fine, I agree, but to gloss over the whole thing like it's a witch-hunt shows a complete lack of interest on your part in learning why so many pro-trans people feel the way we do about her.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The whole thing is just a giant tree of "this person is bad because this thing said so" or "this person is bad because they associate with this other person who is bad" and when you actually get to the leaves of the tree, which is an arduous task on its own, all too often the result is just something really minor, meaningless or stupid.

You're willfully burying your head in the sand at this point. We have repeatedly linked very specific and documented things that Rowling has said and done, and it's not just feelings or vibes. If you want to argue that she's not as bad as Raichik or Walsh, fine, I agree, but to gloss over the whole thing like it's a witch-hunt shows a complete lack of interest on your part in learning why so many pro-trans people feel the way we do about her.

In the other thread, you linked a YouTube video that is 3 hours and 36 minutes long.  I'm sorry but I'm not going to watch something longer than the Lord of the Rings movies to find out what the overwhelming evidence is that Rowling is a bigot.  If it's really so overwhelming it should be easier to summarize.

The only other attempt anyone in that thread made to actually link to the allegedly horrible things Rowling has said/done was leecannon linking the GLAAD article about her, which I demonstrated to be a nothingburger, and nobody tried to counter that or defend it.

One has to wonder why, if it's so easy to find the horrendous things Rowling has said/done, the GLAAD article didn't actually include any of them, and nobody in that seven-page-long thread bothered to link any single one of them, much less a concise summary or greatest hits?

[lfromnj]

Again I don't care about Rowling this or that, I can see an argument either way but I don't care. Its more funny as popcorn to me. What I want to know are what are the NYT journal articles that are so transphobic and dangerous that they should be taken down as they cause trans genocide. The staff at the NYT are demanding the newspaper censor articles for this reason and I want to know to what they are.