That sub-headline there caused me to recollect one of the Big Questions I ponder: Just how much a liberal can one be while one pretty much has no issues with let's say the current state of capitalism and capitalists?
And to bring it closer to home, add to the Times' position on economic matters, compliant, submissive national security issues, and, of course, employing the Baker, Haberman and (still?) Martin, just how liberal is it by any standard other than the hoary right wing shibboleth?
In the Times' defense, tho', I'm sure that they have plenty of readers whose kids have transitioned, may transition, are considering it, etc., and are looking to the Times, as opposed to professionals, for guidance so, at least for them, the Times is delivering or, more precisely, pandering to their fears.
That letter has some pretty impressive signatories. I thought it was particularly effective that it drew a parallel between the present NYT coverage of trans people and their past bigoted coverage of gays as well as their early non-coverage the AIDS crisis back in the day.
Reactionary centrists like Matt Yglesias, Josh Barro, and Jesse Singal are all ivy-leaguers who have no skin in the game, and they’ve been able to position themselves as the moderate voices of reason in order to slam trans people for far too long. It would be nice if this letter makes the Times a little nervous so they course correct, but I’m not holding my breath.
You are aware that the “we” of which you speak concerning the Harper’s letter includes Margaret Atwood and Noam Chomsky and Salman Rushdie among other excellent writers who are not your usual suspects, though unsurprisingly they are well represented among the signatories. Basically the letter argues that well meaning people can disagree, not that dishonest propagandists shouldn’t be shunned.
The Times letter makes good points about editorial failures in a few stories, but the top level complaint is that they cover the debate about “the propriety of medical care for trans children...” That is a very real debate that is happening among very real people and should definitely be covered by any legitimate news organization.
We're lucky you're on the side of the angels. If you toned this down just a little bit you could make serious bank working for Team Evil. Their editors would love you too cause you know most of what they get is mostly misspelled gibberish.
Yours is ready to go out of the envelope.
Think of the money! Sure you may have a hard time living with yourself but that's why they have drugs!
If the NYT editorial management were to respond positively to the real letter complaining about the paper’s coverage of trans issues, by, I dunno, acknowledging that the signatories have a possible point, they would get a letter that would closely resemble Roy’s parody letter. As it happens, Roy’s satirical salvo made it to deadline before reality could kill it.
Jamelle Bouie had a pro-trans-rights column about a week ago, the comments were full of ignorant nonsense about teens having surgery, somehow without the consent of their parents? At the time I thought it a little odd, but now I can see where they're getting this hate-filled garbage, from the pages of the New York Times.
Also, representing paid right-wing activists as "concerned parents", isn't that Selena Zito's job?
I know, right? Why does the NYT even bother writing about this topic?
The facts and science and evidence and data definitively, clearly, unequivocally and beyond any reasonable doubt prove the propriety and efficacy of gender affirming care. Especially for children/teens.
There is no room for debate. No further research is needed. And anyone who thinks differently is an evil, sinister transphobe or TERF. They should be dismissed and ignored on that basis!
This schmuck has been around since the 90s, and he's a walking Hardcore column with additional Jesus. He LOOKS like old classic Limbaugh, and sounds a hell of a lot like him. Wrote a book about how Desert Storm was fulfilling Biblical prophecy and was the first battle of Armageddon. I've hated him for a long, long time.
Twenty years gone and no Bush Jr administration members prosecuted for torture, a universally recognized moral and legal abhorrence, much less lying about WMDs and 9/11 instigators. That America is light years behind South Africa in dealing with evil politicians explains, to me anyway, why we let our current evil politicians and pundits focus on fake cancel culture instead of the harms to the less powerful members of society. (And, yes, I’m trying to move forward from my belief that our Vietnam War disaster was the root cause of our inability to face our problems. As my wife points out, “No one listens when you’re talking about how things were 70 years ago; life has moved on.)
Gosh, lots of parents seem to be really concerned about the Satanic influence of Ozzy Osborne, maybe we should start out with an interview with Tipper Gore and then follow that up with, say, 10,000 words worth of interviews with concerned parents, including some Christian fundamentalist activists presenting themselves as concerned parents? Yeah, that's the ticket, that'll help tamp down the hysteria!
"cheapening our intellectual property"
Self-cheapening, Shirley.
Anyway, 2 marks!
That sub-headline there caused me to recollect one of the Big Questions I ponder: Just how much a liberal can one be while one pretty much has no issues with let's say the current state of capitalism and capitalists?
And to bring it closer to home, add to the Times' position on economic matters, compliant, submissive national security issues, and, of course, employing the Baker, Haberman and (still?) Martin, just how liberal is it by any standard other than the hoary right wing shibboleth?
In the Times' defense, tho', I'm sure that they have plenty of readers whose kids have transitioned, may transition, are considering it, etc., and are looking to the Times, as opposed to professionals, for guidance so, at least for them, the Times is delivering or, more precisely, pandering to their fears.
OTOH: Christ, what a bunch of assholes.
That letter has some pretty impressive signatories. I thought it was particularly effective that it drew a parallel between the present NYT coverage of trans people and their past bigoted coverage of gays as well as their early non-coverage the AIDS crisis back in the day.
Reactionary centrists like Matt Yglesias, Josh Barro, and Jesse Singal are all ivy-leaguers who have no skin in the game, and they’ve been able to position themselves as the moderate voices of reason in order to slam trans people for far too long. It would be nice if this letter makes the Times a little nervous so they course correct, but I’m not holding my breath.
we do not necessarily agree with Hagee
That we do is just a coincidence.
You are aware that the “we” of which you speak concerning the Harper’s letter includes Margaret Atwood and Noam Chomsky and Salman Rushdie among other excellent writers who are not your usual suspects, though unsurprisingly they are well represented among the signatories. Basically the letter argues that well meaning people can disagree, not that dishonest propagandists shouldn’t be shunned.
The Times letter makes good points about editorial failures in a few stories, but the top level complaint is that they cover the debate about “the propriety of medical care for trans children...” That is a very real debate that is happening among very real people and should definitely be covered by any legitimate news organization.
We're lucky you're on the side of the angels. If you toned this down just a little bit you could make serious bank working for Team Evil. Their editors would love you too cause you know most of what they get is mostly misspelled gibberish.
Yours is ready to go out of the envelope.
Think of the money! Sure you may have a hard time living with yourself but that's why they have drugs!
If the NYT editorial management were to respond positively to the real letter complaining about the paper’s coverage of trans issues, by, I dunno, acknowledging that the signatories have a possible point, they would get a letter that would closely resemble Roy’s parody letter. As it happens, Roy’s satirical salvo made it to deadline before reality could kill it.
Jamelle Bouie had a pro-trans-rights column about a week ago, the comments were full of ignorant nonsense about teens having surgery, somehow without the consent of their parents? At the time I thought it a little odd, but now I can see where they're getting this hate-filled garbage, from the pages of the New York Times.
Also, representing paid right-wing activists as "concerned parents", isn't that Selena Zito's job?
I know, right? Why does the NYT even bother writing about this topic?
The facts and science and evidence and data definitively, clearly, unequivocally and beyond any reasonable doubt prove the propriety and efficacy of gender affirming care. Especially for children/teens.
There is no room for debate. No further research is needed. And anyone who thinks differently is an evil, sinister transphobe or TERF. They should be dismissed and ignored on that basis!
Oh no. Not that nice Ed Yong.
John. Fucking. Hagee.
Sweet screaming Jesus.
This schmuck has been around since the 90s, and he's a walking Hardcore column with additional Jesus. He LOOKS like old classic Limbaugh, and sounds a hell of a lot like him. Wrote a book about how Desert Storm was fulfilling Biblical prophecy and was the first battle of Armageddon. I've hated him for a long, long time.
Twenty years gone and no Bush Jr administration members prosecuted for torture, a universally recognized moral and legal abhorrence, much less lying about WMDs and 9/11 instigators. That America is light years behind South Africa in dealing with evil politicians explains, to me anyway, why we let our current evil politicians and pundits focus on fake cancel culture instead of the harms to the less powerful members of society. (And, yes, I’m trying to move forward from my belief that our Vietnam War disaster was the root cause of our inability to face our problems. As my wife points out, “No one listens when you’re talking about how things were 70 years ago; life has moved on.)
Gosh, lots of parents seem to be really concerned about the Satanic influence of Ozzy Osborne, maybe we should start out with an interview with Tipper Gore and then follow that up with, say, 10,000 words worth of interviews with concerned parents, including some Christian fundamentalist activists presenting themselves as concerned parents? Yeah, that's the ticket, that'll help tamp down the hysteria!
A crisp Swift irony on the palate, with pleasant undertones of George Saunders bureaucratese on the finish…
Per se.
A brave trans skeptic is something to be.