9 Comments
Mar 27Liked by Parker Molloy

It’s (rhetorically) funny how flexible the commitment to “balance” is—which voices it’s deemed unacceptable to exclude and which voices it’s totally fine to exclude.

It’s particularly sharp in this case, but one of the reasons Both Sides is a worthless principle is because Both Sides has never actually meant Both Sides. It’s not really a principle at all; it’s an anti-principle, a post facto self-justification.

Expand full comment

Yeah I can’t think of another reason to not ask trans people about these discriminatory laws other than to be gratuitously anti-trans in coverage. It sucks and I hope this changes ASAP.

Expand full comment

Big, tough Mr. Sulzberger, trumpeting his courage in standing up against people who have no money or power to hurt him.

Expand full comment

Thank you for highlighting just how awful the New York Times has been on matters affecting the trans community. It's one thing to sense that they're bad, but another to have the stats to back it up.

Expand full comment

Keep calling out mainstream media on these transgressions!!

Expand full comment

The NYT's coverage of detransitioners is especially galling. They speak at length with one person who probably should not have transitioned in the first place--not blaming them but, rather, their care team--and mention in passing that ALMOST ALL trans people are happy with their decision and that for many people gender affirming care is lifesaving.

Expand full comment

NYT, biased in favor of GOPerverts ?

Expand full comment

I can't think of anything even remotely like this treatment, except that if there's a bill in the legislature strengthening penalties for rape, they don't interview rapists. Is that what the Times thinks of trans people?

Expand full comment

Completely shameful.

Expand full comment