New York Times article on puberty blockers

[DameMaud]

www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/health/puberty-blockers-transgender.html
Is this an unusual/new take for the NYT?

Someone has pointed out on Twitter how Glenn Greewald has changed his position from, in short, "aren't all these Terfs evil and terrible" to "this stuff about puberty blockers is really shocking" in the space of two years.

twitter.com/BertDalziel/status/1592369703426871296

I suppose it's a good sign, though an apology would be nice.

Sadly, I don't think there'll be apologies, or much reflection in the coming years. We will just have to accept that with dignity and gratitude for the turnaround which is (hopefully) coming. I don't believe it I'll be the contemporary reverse ferrets who thank or admire those that pushed back and faced ostracisation for standing in their integrity; it'll be a future generation.

Just standard ‘didn’t hear it when a woman said it’ sexism, surely

I suppose it's a good sign, though an apology would be nice.

That's far from a fair characterisation. That particular comment was seriously unrepresentative of his output, even two years ago - it's a total cherry-pick.

(It was a very bad cherry though).

I'm a big Glenn fan, and have written a few bits about him on this thread over time:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4064790-Glenn-Greenwald-getting-there

That's interesting to here neccessary. Don't know much about GG so I'll look up your thread.
It doesn't help matters to present unfair characterisations, so I'm reminded to look deeper than first appearances.
I'm curious about the context of his first post shown though, in light of what you say. Do you know what the context/reasons were? Was it part of an ongoing shift, and the misrepresentation is in not showing the process of reflection?

Do you know what the context/reasons were?

I don't understand the motivation for that particular tweet, and can't begin to justify it. Even then he had already seemed to grasp that there were genuine issues with trans ideology, so it came a bit out of nowhere.

I kind of get his difficulty latching onto the subject in other areas, and discuss them in that thread.

I kind of get his difficulty latching onto the subject in other areas, and discuss them in that thread.

Just had a quick look through your thread. (Really interesting ACLU piece). On initial perusal his focus seems to be on a deeply held belief in/defence of free speech, and it looks like he is struggling with the cognitive dissonance between that and his support for LGBTQ+; That he can't get to grips with how a marginalised group could be working against free speech (including potentially against their own interests). A struggle I think many of us on the left have gone through- the "I've always stood for the underdog and fought for them (or been them) in any other civil rights battle; so why do I now feel like/I am bring told I'm now the oppressor?"
Someone in your thread raises a point about his possible blind spot; that he isn't able to see any if this from women's/a feminist perspective. Maybe there is even some unconscious misogyny even.
I don't know. That could explain that first tweet.
We know this 'culture war' has many, conflicted factions on each side, who wouldn't normally agree/relate in other issues.
Maybe there is something in this- that GG has resolved some of his cognitive dissonance by recognising many of the troublesome issues in the trans debate (free speech/medicalisation), but he just doesn't relate to the women's/feminist aspects. Without any understanding of that, he wouldn't be able to make a link between what the 'terfs in the UK' (including in relation to being silenced from free speech) were doing, and how what they have been doing has brought the issues di

Oops. .... The issues he does care about, to the forefront.
I actually think it would be great, and would have respect for him if he did reflect and comment on that.

Joan Smith's article about this in UnHerd:

unherd.com/thepost/the-new-york-times-pushes-back-against-puberty-blockers/

Thanks LK1972. Good article and interesting info and insights about the two journalists

insights about the two journalists

Her colleague, Jewett, is an award-winning journalist whose beat includes drug safety.

More specifically, she was responsible for this oft-cited piece on Lupron:

khn.org/news/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems/

Wow. I imagine she might have wanted to write about this in relation to gender medicine before now. That article was 2017!

it is highly respected and yes, influential (there was a reason Trump hated it), but would be regarded as liberal-leaning. And as "elite" by the Trump base. This article is a big departure imo from the pure acceptance that papers like NYT, Washington Post and Boston Globe had on this issue until now. Jennifer Finney Boylan, a transgender academic and writer had an op ed slot there until she retired from it recently. Actually I re-read Finney Boylan's memoir about transitioning recently "She's Not There" (published years ago - transition was when he was 40). I have issues with some of the book but what really struck me is that it would be unpublishable today. No publisher would touch it as written as it would be regarded as completely transphobic.

I found the comments section on this article interesting. There are a lot of people who don't speak publically about what they privately believe.

It is very significant indeed that they're putting two of their most prominent journalists on this. It's not accidental. It feels like a definite and very major reverse ferret.

I also agree with Pallisers about the comments. People are really frightened to speak up about this in public but they will reveal what they think under cover of a pseudonym. This is where the UK was four years ago - and still is in some ways, but to a much lesser extent.