I wrote about dishonest journalists playing both sides of the gender debate

Thank you as always, @glinner.

I've had a thread deleted. Can't think why. Oh well...

Well that was deleted quickly! Sorry I should have ignored it.

I'm sorry I don't have a share token but this article yesterday set off angry readers who are better versed in medicine and science than I am. I am, however, quite aware of shoddy journalism and am writing to the NYTimes to ask how they can produce poorly researched reporting. There are two camps at the venerable Gray Lady, one of classic liberal journalism and one younger, more activist driven with a post-modern slant. Sadly, they've left trans editorial decisions up to the latter group.

www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/well/family/what-are-puberty-blockers.html?referringSource=articleShare

Check out these Examples of angry readers (who trend Democrat).

Republicans KNOW that the majority of regular people who vote with Democrats (heck, the majority of the world) would be uncomfortable if they understood that trans health care in children involved off label drugs with serious side effects and loss of future fertility, bone density and sexual function. They know this issue can create a possible wedge within the Democrat party so they are going to exploit it to their advantage. They bother less with issues Dems are well versed on (climate stuff, minimum wage, universal health care). They have their eyes on those suburban moms who will be pissed when their daughters lose out on athletic scholarships because a trans girl bumps their spot like what happened in Connecticut.

Senator Rand Paul was both sincere AND goady when he asked, "where are the feminists?" GOP motives are clear, but unlike the lies about the insurrection and Trumps's loss, they aren't wrong about this ideology and they know it.

The rest of the GOP's platform is so vile and unpopular with the majority that they are looking for wedge issues where they can persuade a few disgruntled leftists or moderates to switch votes and give them a few wins.

Off topic but motherland is genius and I know you've stepped back but really good to see your name up there. Especially liked the 'identity as Catholic' and Ricky Gervais /Richard Dawkins reference.

Whatever the alleged motive, the outcome is considered by many to be safer for children. I don't ever remember it being regarded as good to carry out surgery for non physical ailments, or medical intervention which will possibly sterilise children. What has given rise to society looking the other way on this?

It does beg the motives on the part of Biden and the Democrats in introducing laws which will pull the rug from under many women and girls. Indeed endanger women and girls. From whence does that vindictiveness spring? Is it on behalf of wealthy donors and influencers calling the tune as they pay the piper?

It's interesting what you say about the public reaction to the Philip and Holly interview. Now, I haven't watched it for years, but in times past I vaguely recall the interviews the show ran being sympathetic but still presenting the opposing view. One that stands out in my memory was a mum sending a bill to another mum for ruined baby clothes. The opposing view (don't dress your child in expensive designer clothes and expect them to stay pristine) was offered in a non judgemental way. Some people would argue.... Do you see why people might think...

I kept waiting for the opposing view, particularly from Holly who I think has designed clothes for kids so you would expect her to understand babies wanting things that are easy to put on and move in. I was waiting for someone to jump in with what exactly makes the child trans as opposed to tomboy. Did the parents know not knowing gender was fixed was a normal part of child development? Were they aware of the danger medical transition presented? Why didn't they advocate for a watch and wait approach? Did they consider maybe the child just liked practical and comfort over discomfort and fuss? Did they have any knowledge of twin psychology?

Yet it was all very cheerleading and the reasons presented very much as fact without challenge. That was something I found very disturbing, since all the other controversy pieces didn't affirm radical and arguably less damaging parenting.

I read Lewis's article. Lewis says: "However, the U.S. discussion is more polarized along party lines, with Republicans floating vindictive laws to ban all hormone treatment for children, for example."

Whatever outcomes such laws may have, I think there can be no doubt that the Republicans motives are primarly vindictive rather than pro-child. In context, that's the interpretation I took.

Media

adam&eveDDB

Advertising Standards Authority

AMV BBDO

BBC

Channel 4 Television

Dennis Publishing

Dentsu Aegis Network

Discovery UK

Essence Digital

GroupM

The Guardian

ITV

Manifesto

Ofcom

Ogilvy & Mather Group UK

Omnicom

Penguin Random House

Sky

Sony Pictures

Telegraph Media Group

Viacom

The Walt Disney Company

Wunderman Thompson

Thanks Graham. Good article. The really frightening thing about this is the editorial decision making that I imagine is driving the lack of proper reporting and investigation into the many issues arising from the new orthodoxy that has appeared seemingly overnight. (I know it hasn't been overnight). One would imagine editors worth their salt would be interested simply in the speed at which these social ideas have taken hold and want to explore. The fact that they are not is concerning. Hugely value the work you do.

I can't help but feel that one good, factual only article appearing in the national newspapers could start the backpedaling on this whole sorry mess.

There have been good articles but there are also daily articles on the front page of the BBC news website pushing genderideology (one today about a teen who is feeling happier now they have got their way and people think they are special).

(Although I notice that @yeahbutnaw's post calling people who want to protect children 'creepy' has been deleted.)

Thanks Graham.

Remember Bunbury, everyone

Can you explain why you find protecting children from making decisions about which they are too immature to understand the consequences is 'creepy' @yeahbutnaw?

The judges in Keira Bell's case also thought children should be protected. Do you believe they are also 'creepy'?

Do you think anyone who believes that children shouldn't be sterilised is 'creepy'?

Is that a DARVO, @yeahbutnaw?

It is sometimes suggested that concern about children making decisions about their fertility and sexual development comes from a dark place.
It is fairly obvious to most people that we want children to have the potential to do anything as adult: become parents, breastfeed, have healthy relationships. There is nothing sinister about wanting individuals to be adults before making decisions that could drastically affect their future bodies, happiness, fertility and potential.

The Material Girls article above is a fairly good sum up of key areas of concern and would be a good introduction of those new to the debate.

That's a very good review of Material Girls. Thanks for posting it.

Yes, that's on my reading list, although I do think dismissing transwidows views is a bit misguided. The accounts of their experiences have left me very sympathetic to their situation and view.
Realistically though, many more people read the papers than a book. If I recommended that for a friend or family member they'd see it as having an agenda.

@SunnydaleClassProtector99 it's not an article but Kathleen Stock's new book Material Girls is comprehensive and very readable. I don't think there's been such a good clear guide to the issue before now. It's true far fewer people will read it than articles but I can imagine it giving rise to good articles.

And just apropos of Nauticant's point about polarisation - it's a pity that people within the GC crowd are dismissing Stock's book in its entirety because they disagree with some of it. Helen Saxby's review was very good and even-handed. notthenewsinbriefs.wordpress.com/2021/05/11/the-butler-did-it-a-review-of-material-girls-by-kathleen-stock/