August 25, 2023 - 10:45am
The New York Times is a righteously proud beast. It has Pulitzer-pulling power, a global reach and, by US standards, a long history. Yet for some years, the behemoth brand has been in the crosshairs of GLAAD, the media monitoring organisation which campaigns for fair representation of “LGBTQ people” (though with a focus on the TQ). Perhaps unsurprisingly, it has been the NYT’s reporting on the medicalisation of youngsters who identify as trans that has particularly enraged GLAAD.
Yesterday, the organisation parked a van outside the NYT’s offices, emblazoned in block capitals with the demand: “Stop questioning trans people’s right to exist & access medical care.” On X, formerly known as Twitter, GLAAD explained that the stunt was a response to “yet another biased, anti-trans article” and that the action was designed to hold the paper “accountable”.
The piece that sparked the protest is a sobering read — a lengthy, rigorous and balanced feature examining outcomes for patients and testimonies from staff at a US gender clinic. To anyone outside the trans activist thrall, the article seems almost painful in its restraint. There is no denial of the existence or the feelings of those receiving treatment to ease their gender dysphoria.
Yet, with predictable hyperbole, GLAAD claimed the piece pushed “debunked lies from an anti-trans extremist” and that it “ignored the science of healthcare for transgender people”. This interpretation is so misleading that it’s tempting to suspect the GLAAD activists didn’t bother reading the article before condemning it as heresy. Notably, the woman labelled an “extremist” has a partner who identifies as trans.
GLAAD has taken cheap shots at the NYT before. In February, a coalition of trans lobby groups including GLAAD hired a plane to pull a banner reading, once again in the preferred vernacular of block caps: “10k NYT readers say: better trans stories!”
Complaints levelled at the paper are almost comically ludicrous. These include the fact that a defence of writer J.K. Rowling was published “by a non-LGBTQ essayist” and that the NYT has declined to specifically “commit to hiring transgender reporters and editors”.
The paper treated these infantile demands with deserved scorn, publicly stating: “We understand how GLAAD sees our coverage. But at the same time, we recognize that GLAAD’s advocacy mission and the Times’s journalistic mission are different.” And on paper, the NYT‘s century-long mission is clear: to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved”.
Of course, it has frequently erred from this mission in regards to gender dogma. Earlier this year it put out a piece misleadingly titled “Bans on transition care for young people spread across US”, with “transition care for young people” doing a lot of heavy lifting as a euphemism for life-altering surgery on children. A day later, it mischaracterised resistance against gender ideology as a movement spearheaded by the “religious Right” and “social conservatives”. In 2020, it confidently proclaimed that “transphobia is everywhere in Britain”, arguing a year later that there was “an active attempt to dehumanize trans people” in the UK. Despite this chequered history, progress is apparently now being made.
In the UK, trans advocacy groups, including Stonewall and Mermaids, have long maintained that the media is institutionally transphobic. But a small core of journalists and editors refused to be cowed, and they have now been vindicated. Most broadsheets have now covered the stories of youngsters who regret transition and the controversy at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.
In the US, however, where the tradition of freedom of speech is supposedly revered, lobby groups such as GLAAD are still attempting to shame and silence journalists and public figures for doing their jobs. With its impotent and infantile display on the side of a van, the organisation positioned itself on the outside of the building where grown-up conversations happen. Meanwhile, on the inside, the journalists and editors at the NYT have continued to think, disagree and — it would appear — make progress.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI know 2 people through my partner who signed the open letter to NYT back in February. They are friendly in real life but I can’t help but hold some disdain for how ridiculous, shallow and facile their understanding of these issues are. So many “progressives” have given up their intellectual faculties to activist groups and just sign on to whatever it is they say makes them on “the right side of history”. It is very alienating
..
Even philosophers (of all people!) sometimes surrender their intellectual faculties to activism. I know several who signed the disgusting open letter against Kathleen Stock. Having quit academia several years ago, suffice to say that if I ever have the misfortune to encounter any of these terds again, I will be viciously abusive towards them.
Like Judge James Tayler who declared belief in biology as ‘unworthy of respect in a democratic society ‘ in the Forstater case, those signatories have a place in history. But not as the good guys.
“terds”?!
As opposed to ‘terfs’. Works for me.
As opposed to ‘terfs’. Works for me.
Like Judge James Tayler who declared belief in biology as ‘unworthy of respect in a democratic society ‘ in the Forstater case, those signatories have a place in history. But not as the good guys.
“terds”?!
Gender Ideology inverts everything. What could be more regressive than magical thinking, child ‘sacrifice’ & women not existing in law. It takes us back hundreds of years.
The upending of rational thought offends me almost as much as the assault on women’s rights.
In fact, in some ways it’s more dangerous in the long term. Ultimately all the rights we all have are founded on reason. The triumph of magical thinking puts them all at risk.
The upending of rational thought offends me almost as much as the assault on women’s rights.
In fact, in some ways it’s more dangerous in the long term. Ultimately all the rights we all have are founded on reason. The triumph of magical thinking puts them all at risk.
What further proof do you need that this ‘gender identity’ farce is being used to impose authoritarianism? Michigan’s ‘misgendering’ law is even worse.
..
Even philosophers (of all people!) sometimes surrender their intellectual faculties to activism. I know several who signed the disgusting open letter against Kathleen Stock. Having quit academia several years ago, suffice to say that if I ever have the misfortune to encounter any of these terds again, I will be viciously abusive towards them.
Gender Ideology inverts everything. What could be more regressive than magical thinking, child ‘sacrifice’ & women not existing in law. It takes us back hundreds of years.
What further proof do you need that this ‘gender identity’ farce is being used to impose authoritarianism? Michigan’s ‘misgendering’ law is even worse.
I know 2 people through my partner who signed the open letter to NYT back in February. They are friendly in real life but I can’t help but hold some disdain for how ridiculous, shallow and facile their understanding of these issues are. So many “progressives” have given up their intellectual faculties to activist groups and just sign on to whatever it is they say makes them on “the right side of history”. It is very alienating
Rather than rational people being “transphobic” I think it’s obvious that these mentally unstable trans ideologues are suffering from an acute case of ‘ “factphobia”.
Rather than rational people being “transphobic” I think it’s obvious that these mentally unstable trans ideologues are suffering from an acute case of ‘ “factphobia”.
Progressives, as a group, are angry. Progressivism, as a movement, is born out of an indignation that justice is being denied someone, somewhere. I suppose there are happy progressives who support the rule of law, but I honestly have never met any. Progressives do not see their activities as a “cancelling” or a “silencing”. They see them as a crusade for justice, and justice holds scales and divides the “just” from the “unjust”. And, as everyone ought to know, the “unjust” do not deserve a platform or an “airing” of their perspective. They only deserve to be punished and silenced.
This piece is very reasonable. Unfortunately, when someone (e.g. GLAAD) is on a crusade to crush the unjust, reason has no place.
Progressives, as a group, are angry. Progressivism, as a movement, is born out of an indignation that justice is being denied someone, somewhere. I suppose there are happy progressives who support the rule of law, but I honestly have never met any. Progressives do not see their activities as a “cancelling” or a “silencing”. They see them as a crusade for justice, and justice holds scales and divides the “just” from the “unjust”. And, as everyone ought to know, the “unjust” do not deserve a platform or an “airing” of their perspective. They only deserve to be punished and silenced.
This piece is very reasonable. Unfortunately, when someone (e.g. GLAAD) is on a crusade to crush the unjust, reason has no place.
I have just been listening to a programme on radio 4 about racism. The question can white people ever be victims of racism was addressed. One of the panel (Jaya Gordon Moore – I think) effectively answers no because racism is not just discrimination or mal-treatment of another based on race but includes power. The host responded by pointing out not everyone agrees with that definition to which she effectively replied then they need educating: the social sciences need to be taught in school so everyone agrees with her definition. I guess that is the left in action. They cannot distinguish between brain washing and education. The trans activists have long been ‘educating’ both staff and pupils in schools as well as workers in general.
I admire your doggedness. These days I can’t listen to R4 for more than three minutes.
I switch on occasionally but there is very little I can stand to listen to. I only listened to the last ten minutes of the program referred to. If you want to hear Jaya’s comment, you only need to listen to the last two or three minutes.
Nor me. I turn radio 4 on. I turn radio 4 off.
I switch on occasionally but there is very little I can stand to listen to. I only listened to the last ten minutes of the program referred to. If you want to hear Jaya’s comment, you only need to listen to the last two or three minutes.
Nor me. I turn radio 4 on. I turn radio 4 off.
These morons either have forgotten about Rotherham et al or think it is a Daily Mail fabrication.
The more obvious problem here is not defining racism, it is that the speaker, like all progressives, assumes that there were no circumstances in which a minority ethnic person would hold power or, in the awful vernacular they use, be more privileged than a white person.
This is the nonsense which needs challenging. For example, proportionally British black and Asian girls are much more likely to finish school, attend university, and go on to a professional career than white boys from the North East of England. In what way do these girls have less power and privilege than those boys, within the context of education and career opportunities?
Yet if you set up a fund to support minority ethnic girls to go to university, you will be lionised in the media. If you try to set up an equivalent scheme for white boys from the North East, the media will treat you like a latter day Oswald Mosely.
there are many black racists. Of course, in many organizations today, blacks do hold the power.
My response to that would be to question the underlying assumption that white people always have more power than black people, which is itself a racist assertion to my mind. Would it not be closer to reality to say that power is situational?
When two people pass each other on the street at night, the power resides with whoever is stronger and carrying the better weapon.
And in the political arena, the power resides with whoever gets to dictate the terms of the debate, for example those who have simply changed established definitions – of racism, of womanhood, of the word “systemic”, etc. – to suit their own agenda. That is true power. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with skin colour.
I admire your doggedness. These days I can’t listen to R4 for more than three minutes.
These morons either have forgotten about Rotherham et al or think it is a Daily Mail fabrication.
The more obvious problem here is not defining racism, it is that the speaker, like all progressives, assumes that there were no circumstances in which a minority ethnic person would hold power or, in the awful vernacular they use, be more privileged than a white person.
This is the nonsense which needs challenging. For example, proportionally British black and Asian girls are much more likely to finish school, attend university, and go on to a professional career than white boys from the North East of England. In what way do these girls have less power and privilege than those boys, within the context of education and career opportunities?
Yet if you set up a fund to support minority ethnic girls to go to university, you will be lionised in the media. If you try to set up an equivalent scheme for white boys from the North East, the media will treat you like a latter day Oswald Mosely.
there are many black racists. Of course, in many organizations today, blacks do hold the power.
My response to that would be to question the underlying assumption that white people always have more power than black people, which is itself a racist assertion to my mind. Would it not be closer to reality to say that power is situational?
When two people pass each other on the street at night, the power resides with whoever is stronger and carrying the better weapon.
And in the political arena, the power resides with whoever gets to dictate the terms of the debate, for example those who have simply changed established definitions – of racism, of womanhood, of the word “systemic”, etc. – to suit their own agenda. That is true power. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with skin colour.
I have just been listening to a programme on radio 4 about racism. The question can white people ever be victims of racism was addressed. One of the panel (Jaya Gordon Moore – I think) effectively answers no because racism is not just discrimination or mal-treatment of another based on race but includes power. The host responded by pointing out not everyone agrees with that definition to which she effectively replied then they need educating: the social sciences need to be taught in school so everyone agrees with her definition. I guess that is the left in action. They cannot distinguish between brain washing and education. The trans activists have long been ‘educating’ both staff and pupils in schools as well as workers in general.
And on paper, the NYT‘s century-long mission is clear: to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved”.
The NYT is so far from this stated mission that it can be considered a cruel joke. Pravda had about as much legitimacy as the NYT when it comes to political/social issues.
NYT is very, very late to the party in recognizing the horrible nature of trans activists – as well as many other Progressive activists (Antifa, BLM, etc.). They are trying so hard to be on the ‘right side of history’ that they take on any new social fad with no thought of the impacts. Like other so-called liberal groups, they are so enamored of the Civil Rights movement of the ’60’s that they keep trying to find similar causes, regardless of how damaging.
The quotation must be a joke. Look up Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer.
The quotation must be a joke. Look up Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer.
And on paper, the NYT‘s century-long mission is clear: to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved”.
The NYT is so far from this stated mission that it can be considered a cruel joke. Pravda had about as much legitimacy as the NYT when it comes to political/social issues.
NYT is very, very late to the party in recognizing the horrible nature of trans activists – as well as many other Progressive activists (Antifa, BLM, etc.). They are trying so hard to be on the ‘right side of history’ that they take on any new social fad with no thought of the impacts. Like other so-called liberal groups, they are so enamored of the Civil Rights movement of the ’60’s that they keep trying to find similar causes, regardless of how damaging.
It wouldn’t matter if every media outlet declared itself a “Trans Ally,’ the gender ideology movement has to portray itself as a victim of bigotry. Everyone was born with Original Sin and will never be able to repent enough to make up for their general awfulness to the “Trans Community.” That’s just Cult 101.
That apart, I’m glad to hear the NYT is starting to acknowledge reality, although it would have been better if it had done so about seven years ago. Whatever progress has been made in allowing rationalism to enter the debate has been down to individuals (like Maya Forstater, Graham Linehan et al) who have taken a ton of shit for their commitment. Most of the media & politicians have either been passive or unquestioningly-obedient to gender ideology.
“the gender ideology movement has to portray itself as a victim of bigotry”
Victocracy. Power and Victimhood are proportional. The more Oppressed you claim to be, the more power you actually have.
“the gender ideology movement has to portray itself as a victim of bigotry”
Victocracy. Power and Victimhood are proportional. The more Oppressed you claim to be, the more power you actually have.
It wouldn’t matter if every media outlet declared itself a “Trans Ally,’ the gender ideology movement has to portray itself as a victim of bigotry. Everyone was born with Original Sin and will never be able to repent enough to make up for their general awfulness to the “Trans Community.” That’s just Cult 101.
That apart, I’m glad to hear the NYT is starting to acknowledge reality, although it would have been better if it had done so about seven years ago. Whatever progress has been made in allowing rationalism to enter the debate has been down to individuals (like Maya Forstater, Graham Linehan et al) who have taken a ton of shit for their commitment. Most of the media & politicians have either been passive or unquestioningly-obedient to gender ideology.
There is a significant clinical debate emerging in the US today, and it’s largley taking place in state courts.
The problem for conservative plaintiffs is that there are very likely a tiny number of genuine cases of children/teenagers being disturbed by this particular form of bodily dysmorphia – anorexia and bulimia being other equivalent complexes drawn from this pathology.
As I see it, the issue remains that eating disorders are not treated by hormone interventions or surgery. Whatever the visible pain of young people – often autistic – feeling that their bodily changes and their sexuality are tormenting them, the fact remains:
The US has found itself in rather an extreme transhuman clinical culture of transforming the bodies of the young in order to fit with a new set of social ethics linked to a particular world-view, dubbed ‘expressive liberalism’ (subjective perspectives on the body and freedom have ultimate legal and ethical validity).
To my mind, this question should go all the way up to the Supreme Court in the fashion of Roe vs Wade.
Let’s hope it does, this whole movement is a corrosive cancer.
Let’s hope it does, this whole movement is a corrosive cancer.
There is a significant clinical debate emerging in the US today, and it’s largley taking place in state courts.
The problem for conservative plaintiffs is that there are very likely a tiny number of genuine cases of children/teenagers being disturbed by this particular form of bodily dysmorphia – anorexia and bulimia being other equivalent complexes drawn from this pathology.
As I see it, the issue remains that eating disorders are not treated by hormone interventions or surgery. Whatever the visible pain of young people – often autistic – feeling that their bodily changes and their sexuality are tormenting them, the fact remains:
The US has found itself in rather an extreme transhuman clinical culture of transforming the bodies of the young in order to fit with a new set of social ethics linked to a particular world-view, dubbed ‘expressive liberalism’ (subjective perspectives on the body and freedom have ultimate legal and ethical validity).
To my mind, this question should go all the way up to the Supreme Court in the fashion of Roe vs Wade.
happily it is beginning to seem as if many of the recent trends in ‘progressivism’ are just too stupid to be sustainable within nominally pluralist liberal market societies. If ethnic minority votes continue to increase in favour of WC/ ‘populist’ policies then maybe you’ll see id politics going out of fashion as well
happily it is beginning to seem as if many of the recent trends in ‘progressivism’ are just too stupid to be sustainable within nominally pluralist liberal market societies. If ethnic minority votes continue to increase in favour of WC/ ‘populist’ policies then maybe you’ll see id politics going out of fashion as well
“give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved”.
That no longer applies to the New York Times in any shape or form. They are closed minded and intolerant.
Isn’t everyone?
Everyone is finite and therefore imperfect. And everyone knows that. But not everyone uses that as an excuse for cynicism. Some people strive nonetheless to attain truth or justice.
No actually, which is why those terms exist.
Everyone is finite and therefore imperfect. And everyone knows that. But not everyone uses that as an excuse for cynicism. Some people strive nonetheless to attain truth or justice.
No actually, which is why those terms exist.
Isn’t everyone?
“give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved”.
That no longer applies to the New York Times in any shape or form. They are closed minded and intolerant.
I have nothing but contempt for the many professionals (scientists, physicians, therapists) who have bought into the psychotic trans delusion. How cheaply they hold Actual Fact! They should have their shiny degrees rescinded.
I have nothing but contempt for the many professionals (scientists, physicians, therapists) who have bought into the psychotic trans delusion. How cheaply they hold Actual Fact! They should have their shiny degrees rescinded.
The right side of history is like an oasis in the desert and history is a very long game.
I rather suspect those who actively try to be on the right side of history are destined to end up on the wrong side of history especially when using the right side of history as a weapon or a threat.
I rather suspect those who actively try to be on the right side of history are destined to end up on the wrong side of history especially when using the right side of history as a weapon or a threat.
The right side of history is like an oasis in the desert and history is a very long game.
The New York Times was always a paper that was happy to go after low-hanging fruit.
The New York Times was always a paper that was happy to go after low-hanging fruit.
It’s interesting, the same kind of occasional display of common sense is seen at CNN, WaPo, the Atlantic etc. But just as with the here-and-there criticisms of Biden/Harris, it seems to simply be a part of the larger gaslighting project.
Yeah, there’s a hell of a long way to go until this cancer is excised not just from the media but from the military, corporations, the medical industry, the universities and from the US government. The level of collusion is massive indeed.
Yeah, there’s a hell of a long way to go until this cancer is excised not just from the media but from the military, corporations, the medical industry, the universities and from the US government. The level of collusion is massive indeed.
It’s interesting, the same kind of occasional display of common sense is seen at CNN, WaPo, the Atlantic etc. But just as with the here-and-there criticisms of Biden/Harris, it seems to simply be a part of the larger gaslighting project.
It is increasingly difficult to take anyone seriously who insists upon labeling those who disagree with them as ‘phobic’. It is especially troubling to see those who suffer from a mental disorder (i.e., gender dysphoria) diagnosing those who do not share their view of this condition as suffering from another mental disorder (i.e., phobia). When people are allowed to freely distort language in this fashion meaningful discussion – and even meaningful thought – are brought to a halt and ideological authoritarianism takes over.
It is increasingly difficult to take anyone seriously who insists upon labeling those who disagree with them as ‘phobic’. It is especially troubling to see those who suffer from a mental disorder (i.e., gender dysphoria) diagnosing those who do not share their view of this condition as suffering from another mental disorder (i.e., phobia). When people are allowed to freely distort language in this fashion meaningful discussion – and even meaningful thought – are brought to a halt and ideological authoritarianism takes over.
Thank you for this. I follow you on Spiked as well, very glad you’re doing what you’re doing.
Thank you for this. I follow you on Spiked as well, very glad you’re doing what you’re doing.
Ditto Reuters.
Ditto Reuters.
If it’s in the New York Slimes, that’s proof it ain’t so.
If it’s in the New York Slimes, that’s proof it ain’t so.