NYT Director of External Communications Charlie Stadtlander's identifying the difference between advocacy mission and journalism mission is crucial. Let's lean on that! How can we thank him for it?
Thank you for continuing to speak up. I appreciate all the information in here and will use it to inform my own letter to the editors or The NY Times. I don't expect anything to be published; I just want to let them know some of us appreciate a broader view on this topic.
I just want to say we need to be careful how we address transgender adults who are living meaningful lives, working hard at changing things for kids and we need more good transgender representation bc the activists get all the attention and they care nothing about anything but their own agendas. As Dr. Erica Anderson says...”we need more light less heat”. For anyone who thinks it’s ok to disrespect good, hard working trans people that’s what PITT is for...I’ve been blocked for 100 years for commenting that I like Dr. Anderson and that is a forum where hate speech is allowed and sometimes welcomed. I like this Substack bc it’s nuanced and respectful of transgender people but also critical of youth gender medicine. Same with Jesse Singal. Being in the middle isn’t easy. It’s probably the hardest place to be.
Thanks Lisa. As an NYT subscriber who has read all of the articles that GLAAD complains about (and have had virtually all my comments thereon taken down), I can attest that the NYT’s recent “critiques” of trans ideology have been tepid, at most. As you say, the NYT invariably presents most criticism of trans ideology as “right wing,” which I find infuriating. And the NYT regularly publishes pro-trans “puff pieces” and pro-trans talking points like Michelle Goldberg’s recent editorial touting the benefits of allowing schools to transition kids without parental consent (to which readers responded with a torrent of critical comments, many of which, including mine, were taken down).
I usually read the comments to NYT trans articles. It appears from the comments sections that a significant portion of the NYT’s readership has serious reservations about what is happening, particularly to kids. What I find most troubling about GLAAD’s stance is that they are really asking the NYT to silence all criticism of a dubious ideology., including criticisms which resonate with many NYT subscribers. This is totalitarian approach; the word fascist comes to mind.
And you can be sure that the NYT won’t touch any gender clinic whistleblower story with a 10 foot pole.
Fantastic letter. This line made me LOL: "Einstein would have been shit out of luck." In the interests of diversifying their editorial perspective, I would also suggest that the NYT meet with writers who are detransitioners, such as Helena Kirschner.
Leonore: I am reporting in. I got a very nice response from Mr. Stadtlander. Here's what he wrote: "Susan - Thank you for your reply, I truly appreciate hearing the feedback. I couldn't agree more about the importance of the unflinching journalism that our audience expects of us. All the best to you, and sincere appreciation for your note." This confirms to me, despite all odds, that praising folks for what they do right is a helpful thing to do, and one we don't do often enough.
Brava. So grateful for your deep knowledge, clear, articulate writing, and consistent courage. And, in this case, a bit of delightful humor into the bargain: “Imagine if Newton had claimed not only that there was no more to know about gravity, but that it was hateful to ask questions about it. Einstein would have been shit out of luck.” I stand with you, proudly, and with JK Rowling, and with all the magnificent women everywhere who are refusing to be silenced, including so many here. You give me hope--and sometimes, even a little bit of courage to speak out of my own! (PS: the Morgan never got back to me re the Izzard thing, but I did have a little better luck with the American Prospect on a young writer’s maiden voyage article supporting boycotting the Harry Potter video game🥳.)
Great column -- in substance and in tone. Of course I am deeply curious to see if the activists letter succeeds in limiting the NYTimes coverage. Obviously they succeeded after the whole Tom Cotton op-ed fiasco, in which the NYTimes distinguished itself with new levels pusillanimity and concessions to activists.
I agree entirely with this post. As long-time reader of the NYT, I have been appalled at the one-sided coverage. The actual lies that have been printed that fit the trans agenda, but when implemented cause permanent harm to children who lack the capacity to consent to medical procedures that will leave them damaged forever. Only very recently have I noticed the slight crack in the pro-trans rhetoric. The ignorance of the general public about the biological facts around mammalian reproduction have been frightening to behold. Physiology is not a "social construction" and wishes can't always come true.
But today the NYT published this op-ed by Megan Stack: When Parents Hear That Their Child ‘Is Not Normal and Should Not Exist’ Was this one of the writers who attacked other writers? I would love to see the paper publish a response, something like "When Parents Hear That Their Child ‘Is Not Normal and Must be Sterilized and Amputated’."
NYT Director of External Communications Charlie Stadtlander's identifying the difference between advocacy mission and journalism mission is crucial. Let's lean on that! How can we thank him for it?
Excellent again!! Other concerned trans people - Aaron Kimberly, Aaron Terrell and Scott Newgent. Thanks for your continued amazing coverage, Lisa!!
Thank you for continuing to speak up. I appreciate all the information in here and will use it to inform my own letter to the editors or The NY Times. I don't expect anything to be published; I just want to let them know some of us appreciate a broader view on this topic.
I just want to say we need to be careful how we address transgender adults who are living meaningful lives, working hard at changing things for kids and we need more good transgender representation bc the activists get all the attention and they care nothing about anything but their own agendas. As Dr. Erica Anderson says...”we need more light less heat”. For anyone who thinks it’s ok to disrespect good, hard working trans people that’s what PITT is for...I’ve been blocked for 100 years for commenting that I like Dr. Anderson and that is a forum where hate speech is allowed and sometimes welcomed. I like this Substack bc it’s nuanced and respectful of transgender people but also critical of youth gender medicine. Same with Jesse Singal. Being in the middle isn’t easy. It’s probably the hardest place to be.
Thanks Lisa. As an NYT subscriber who has read all of the articles that GLAAD complains about (and have had virtually all my comments thereon taken down), I can attest that the NYT’s recent “critiques” of trans ideology have been tepid, at most. As you say, the NYT invariably presents most criticism of trans ideology as “right wing,” which I find infuriating. And the NYT regularly publishes pro-trans “puff pieces” and pro-trans talking points like Michelle Goldberg’s recent editorial touting the benefits of allowing schools to transition kids without parental consent (to which readers responded with a torrent of critical comments, many of which, including mine, were taken down).
I usually read the comments to NYT trans articles. It appears from the comments sections that a significant portion of the NYT’s readership has serious reservations about what is happening, particularly to kids. What I find most troubling about GLAAD’s stance is that they are really asking the NYT to silence all criticism of a dubious ideology., including criticisms which resonate with many NYT subscribers. This is totalitarian approach; the word fascist comes to mind.
And you can be sure that the NYT won’t touch any gender clinic whistleblower story with a 10 foot pole.
Lisa- will you (try to) submit this piece to the NYT? Thanks for another great essay!
Fantastic letter. This line made me LOL: "Einstein would have been shit out of luck." In the interests of diversifying their editorial perspective, I would also suggest that the NYT meet with writers who are detransitioners, such as Helena Kirschner.
Thank you for your allyship, Lisa.
I want to sign this letter!
Leonore: I am reporting in. I got a very nice response from Mr. Stadtlander. Here's what he wrote: "Susan - Thank you for your reply, I truly appreciate hearing the feedback. I couldn't agree more about the importance of the unflinching journalism that our audience expects of us. All the best to you, and sincere appreciation for your note." This confirms to me, despite all odds, that praising folks for what they do right is a helpful thing to do, and one we don't do often enough.
Brava. So grateful for your deep knowledge, clear, articulate writing, and consistent courage. And, in this case, a bit of delightful humor into the bargain: “Imagine if Newton had claimed not only that there was no more to know about gravity, but that it was hateful to ask questions about it. Einstein would have been shit out of luck.” I stand with you, proudly, and with JK Rowling, and with all the magnificent women everywhere who are refusing to be silenced, including so many here. You give me hope--and sometimes, even a little bit of courage to speak out of my own! (PS: the Morgan never got back to me re the Izzard thing, but I did have a little better luck with the American Prospect on a young writer’s maiden voyage article supporting boycotting the Harry Potter video game🥳.)
Great column -- in substance and in tone. Of course I am deeply curious to see if the activists letter succeeds in limiting the NYTimes coverage. Obviously they succeeded after the whole Tom Cotton op-ed fiasco, in which the NYTimes distinguished itself with new levels pusillanimity and concessions to activists.
I agree entirely with this post. As long-time reader of the NYT, I have been appalled at the one-sided coverage. The actual lies that have been printed that fit the trans agenda, but when implemented cause permanent harm to children who lack the capacity to consent to medical procedures that will leave them damaged forever. Only very recently have I noticed the slight crack in the pro-trans rhetoric. The ignorance of the general public about the biological facts around mammalian reproduction have been frightening to behold. Physiology is not a "social construction" and wishes can't always come true.
Leftist overreach has finally pissed off the mama bears. Scotland is just the beginning.
Demanding evidence based support for kids and young people who identify as trans is not anti-trans!!!
It's supporting them?!
Giving people lies and drugs that might only harm, not help, is not "pro-trans".
The science? You've been reporting it. Many have. Reuters in great detail, too.
But today the NYT published this op-ed by Megan Stack: When Parents Hear That Their Child ‘Is Not Normal and Should Not Exist’ Was this one of the writers who attacked other writers? I would love to see the paper publish a response, something like "When Parents Hear That Their Child ‘Is Not Normal and Must be Sterilized and Amputated’."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/18/opinion/trans-gender-missouri.html