In a recent response to our articles criticizing misinformation in Pamela Paul's article on detransitioners, Pamela Paul dismisses us and our work. Evan Urquhart and I respond to the latest piece.
An excellent rebuttal and shame on The New York Times for not publishing it. If they are going to allow Paul’s bigotry under the guise of “opinion,” the least they can do is clap back on the shoddy journalism.
Thanks so much for your careful dissection of Paul's deliberate attempts to mislead readers.
Her use of that Tricare study is so problematic. Indeed, it counts those who did not fill a prescription for hormones through the Tricare insurance plan FOR 3 MONTHS. The amount of testosterone I get filled varies from pharmacy to pharmacy. There have been multiple times when they have given me a supply which, given the amount I take, lasts me longer than 3 months and as long as 6 months. I would have been counted in this study, although I've never missed a dose for more than a week at a time (from traveling and forgetting to bring my T). This is why the study warns that it overcounts those who discontinue hormones. It also references another study that found that another study in which only 16% of hormone discontinuation was due to change in gender identity or mental health concerns, the rest were due to external factors that make it difficult to be a trans person in the world. Most irresponsibly of all, Paul uses the study to support a claim that goes AGAINST it's major finding, which is the youth in the study are MORE likely to continue hormone use (according to the stringent terms set by the study) than the adults. As the authors themselves conclude, “this finding provides support for the idea that TGD individuals below the age of legal majority, with the assistance of their parents or legal guardians and health care providers, can provide meaningful informed assent for gender-affirming hormones and do not appear to be at a higher risk of future discontinuation of gender-affirming hormones because of their young age alone." Yet Paul uses it to argue that the current cohort of adolescents are more likely than any other cohort to detransition and to regret having transitioned. Paul's journalism is malpractice.
What I find bizarre about people like Paul is what exactly drives them to engage in this sort of disinformation and propaganda? This is apparently a straight woman with three kids. Why the need to put her finger on the scale and misrepresent the numbers and peoples' lived experiences? What's it to her? These people really are sad and pathetic.
Hear! Hear! it is clear here who the REAL activist here really is with an axe to grind. In the end, it's about promoting culture warriors at the Times like Paul to draw some of that traffic being lost to WSJ and Fox. Sulzberger is making a statement; "It's a business, and we'll sell what we can to whom we can."
The NYT loves publishing shoddy work that would get any serious journalist blacklisted from the industry and then hiding behind the excuse of "it's an Opinion Piece [TM] so that means we can just print whatever".
Honestly, I am sad that there isn't more outrage out of trans spaces at the NYT for consistently publishing fear mongering news articles about detransitioners filled with falsehoods and outright lies. Her assertion that the SGBM is a non partisan group is literally just a lie! The NYT needs to be labeled a right-wing publication akin to fox News at this point.
Might I suggest a different tact to the NY Times policy against response op-eds for a submission? It seems there's room for a piece on how the editorial editors don't fact check -- don't hold their opinion writers -- to high editorial standards regarding fact checking or statements about trans people are like when the we/they distinction is involved. Let me quote what Bayard Rustin said about Gay people in 1986 in his essay From Montgomery to Stonewall (found in Time On Two Crosses: The Collected Writings of Bayard Rustin):
"Gay people must continue [to] protest. This will not be easy, in part because homosexuality remains an identity subject to a 'we/they' distinction. People who would not say 'I am like this, but black people are like that,' or 'we are like this, but women are like that,' or 'we are like this, but Jews are like that' find it extremely simple to say "homosexuals are like that, but we are like this.' That's what makes are struggle the central struggle of our time, the central struggle for democracy, and the central struggle for human rights. If gay people do not understand that, they do not understand the opportunity before them, nor do they understand the terrifying burdens they carry on their shoulders."
I'd argue in 2024, trans is the new gay. What Rustin knew was true of gay people in 1986, we trans folk should know is true of our community in 2024.
What the NY Times has been doing for the better part of a decade is making trans people the they in a we/they distinction. The NY Times Op-Ed editors wouldn't allow Blacks, women, Jews, or Gays to have bad data, information, and studies cited in articles about these populations, where these populations are subject in these pieces to the we/they distinction. But, they regularly do allow this to be done to trans people, and by policy they don't allow fact-checking or challenging of articles by trans people to be published.
Do they even have a trans person on staff who reviews any of their published stuff?
So, I'd reccommend submitting a piece citing Bayard Rustin's we/they distinction. It may go nowhere, but it's a different tact to at the least feel a bit uncomfortable about being accused of being otherers
Outstanding work, Erin (and Evan)! I hope this criticism is able to effectively “make the rounds”; it is very unfortunate the NYT chose not to publish it
An excellent rebuttal and shame on The New York Times for not publishing it. If they are going to allow Paul’s bigotry under the guise of “opinion,” the least they can do is clap back on the shoddy journalism.
The NY times really seems to have a penchant for publishing BS antitrans articles with little to no factual basis.
Thanks so much for your careful dissection of Paul's deliberate attempts to mislead readers.
Her use of that Tricare study is so problematic. Indeed, it counts those who did not fill a prescription for hormones through the Tricare insurance plan FOR 3 MONTHS. The amount of testosterone I get filled varies from pharmacy to pharmacy. There have been multiple times when they have given me a supply which, given the amount I take, lasts me longer than 3 months and as long as 6 months. I would have been counted in this study, although I've never missed a dose for more than a week at a time (from traveling and forgetting to bring my T). This is why the study warns that it overcounts those who discontinue hormones. It also references another study that found that another study in which only 16% of hormone discontinuation was due to change in gender identity or mental health concerns, the rest were due to external factors that make it difficult to be a trans person in the world. Most irresponsibly of all, Paul uses the study to support a claim that goes AGAINST it's major finding, which is the youth in the study are MORE likely to continue hormone use (according to the stringent terms set by the study) than the adults. As the authors themselves conclude, “this finding provides support for the idea that TGD individuals below the age of legal majority, with the assistance of their parents or legal guardians and health care providers, can provide meaningful informed assent for gender-affirming hormones and do not appear to be at a higher risk of future discontinuation of gender-affirming hormones because of their young age alone." Yet Paul uses it to argue that the current cohort of adolescents are more likely than any other cohort to detransition and to regret having transitioned. Paul's journalism is malpractice.
Thank you for firing back at dishonest "journalism," y'all. Genuinely, thank you!
What I find bizarre about people like Paul is what exactly drives them to engage in this sort of disinformation and propaganda? This is apparently a straight woman with three kids. Why the need to put her finger on the scale and misrepresent the numbers and peoples' lived experiences? What's it to her? These people really are sad and pathetic.
If you're pro-trans, you're an "activist". If you're anti-trans, you're a "journalist".
Another good piece! The Times should have published it. Thanks very much for your work, both of you.
Hear! Hear! it is clear here who the REAL activist here really is with an axe to grind. In the end, it's about promoting culture warriors at the Times like Paul to draw some of that traffic being lost to WSJ and Fox. Sulzberger is making a statement; "It's a business, and we'll sell what we can to whom we can."
https://medium.com/@rikiwilchins/why-all-transgender-writers-are-activists-to-the-ny-times-b8892d94daf6
The term for what Pamela Paul is writing is “propaganda.” so she’s not an activist; she’s a propagandist.
The NYT loves publishing shoddy work that would get any serious journalist blacklisted from the industry and then hiding behind the excuse of "it's an Opinion Piece [TM] so that means we can just print whatever".
Honestly, I am sad that there isn't more outrage out of trans spaces at the NYT for consistently publishing fear mongering news articles about detransitioners filled with falsehoods and outright lies. Her assertion that the SGBM is a non partisan group is literally just a lie! The NYT needs to be labeled a right-wing publication akin to fox News at this point.
Great piece! So sorry the NY Times didn't post this response. Maybe another media giant would accept it?
Might I suggest a different tact to the NY Times policy against response op-eds for a submission? It seems there's room for a piece on how the editorial editors don't fact check -- don't hold their opinion writers -- to high editorial standards regarding fact checking or statements about trans people are like when the we/they distinction is involved. Let me quote what Bayard Rustin said about Gay people in 1986 in his essay From Montgomery to Stonewall (found in Time On Two Crosses: The Collected Writings of Bayard Rustin):
"Gay people must continue [to] protest. This will not be easy, in part because homosexuality remains an identity subject to a 'we/they' distinction. People who would not say 'I am like this, but black people are like that,' or 'we are like this, but women are like that,' or 'we are like this, but Jews are like that' find it extremely simple to say "homosexuals are like that, but we are like this.' That's what makes are struggle the central struggle of our time, the central struggle for democracy, and the central struggle for human rights. If gay people do not understand that, they do not understand the opportunity before them, nor do they understand the terrifying burdens they carry on their shoulders."
I'd argue in 2024, trans is the new gay. What Rustin knew was true of gay people in 1986, we trans folk should know is true of our community in 2024.
What the NY Times has been doing for the better part of a decade is making trans people the they in a we/they distinction. The NY Times Op-Ed editors wouldn't allow Blacks, women, Jews, or Gays to have bad data, information, and studies cited in articles about these populations, where these populations are subject in these pieces to the we/they distinction. But, they regularly do allow this to be done to trans people, and by policy they don't allow fact-checking or challenging of articles by trans people to be published.
Do they even have a trans person on staff who reviews any of their published stuff?
So, I'd reccommend submitting a piece citing Bayard Rustin's we/they distinction. It may go nowhere, but it's a different tact to at the least feel a bit uncomfortable about being accused of being otherers
So, I'd suggest writing a
Let’s hope other credible news sources pick this up. Thank you for standing up with intelligence, clear intent and an honest heart.
Outstanding work, Erin (and Evan)! I hope this criticism is able to effectively “make the rounds”; it is very unfortunate the NYT chose not to publish it
Thank you Erin. And - what a surprise - the NYT declined to publish.