The Quote That Reveals What's Really Behind Anti-Trans "Concerns"

"I think this whole debate ... is hard to solve when people aren't on the fundamental same page about the existence of a trans identity and the fact that it is a valid identity."

Buried in the final episode of New York Times' new podcast "The Protocol" is a moment of startling clarity that cuts through all the manufactured debates about transgender healthcare. It comes from Dr. Scott Leibowitz, a psychiatrist who worked with transgender youth in Ohio before the state banned the care he provided. His words unwittingly reveal the fundamental truth that mainstream media coverage — including that of the Times — consistently obscures: this isn't really about medical protocols or research quality or protecting confused children. It's about the refusal to accept that transgender people exist at all.

"I feel like this was not preventable," Leibowitz tells reporter Azeen Ghorayshi, describing the collapse of transgender healthcare in his state. "And that's why I think this whole debate, this whole culture war, unfortunately, is hard to solve when people aren't on the fundamental same page about the existence of a trans identity and the fact that it is a valid identity. Like, we all have to agree on one thing before then we can start talking about the nuance."

---

---

There it is, right there in the middle of a podcast that built around treating anti-trans political campaigns as legitimate medical concerns: the admission that this fight isn't about nuance at all. Leibowitz figured this out the hard way, after initially believing that better research and more careful protocols might satisfy critics. Instead, he learned what transgender advocates have been saying all along — that no amount of evidence will satisfy people who fundamentally reject the idea that transgender identities are valid.

This revelation should be the basis of every story about transgender healthcare restrictions. It should be the framing that guides coverage of anti-trans legislation. Instead, it's treated as an aside, a single quote buried in hours of content that otherwise legitimizes the very "debate" Leibowitz correctly identifies as fundamentally dishonest.

The doctor's evolution is telling. He initially believed, as many well-meaning professionals do, that the attacks on transgender care stemmed from legitimate medical concerns. If only researchers could produce better studies, if only clinicians could develop more rigorous protocols, if only the medical community could reach clearer consensus, then surely reasonable people would support evidence-based care for transgender youth. This is the same assumption that underlies much of the mainstream media's approach to covering these issues — the idea that we're witnessing a good-faith scientific debate rather than a coordinated political campaign.

But Leibowitz learned what happens when you try to engage with this supposed scientific concern in good faith. No matter how careful his approach, no matter how thoroughly he explained the research, no matter how many safeguards were put in place, it wasn't enough. Because the goal was never to improve care or protect children — it was to eliminate transgender people from public life entirely.

This recognition isn't new. I wrote about this exact dynamic in the New York Times back in 2018, when I argued that we can't have productive policy discussions about transgender issues "if debate starts from the premise that trans people are and will always be whatever happens to be stamped on our original birth certificates." Even then, it was clear that what passed for "debate" on trans issues was "less a look at what any proposed policy would actually accomplish and much more of a focus on trans people as a concept."

I warned that when discussions about transgender-related policies focused on whether transgender identities were legitimate rather than on the practical effects of those policies, we would find ourselves "mired in the same stalemate" over and over again. Six years later, Leibowitz has arrived at the same conclusion through painful experience, watching as his careful medical practice was criminalized not because of evidence about its effects, but because it acknowledged transgender people's existence. What I identified as a rhetorical problem in 2018 has become a devastating political reality.

"There is such a laser-focused mission that has a very well-oiled financial machine behind it, in politics, on the right, that is destined to eliminate trans care and basically trans rights and trans people from existence," Leibowitz explains. This isn't hyperbole or partisan rhetoric — it's an accurate description of what groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Heritage Foundation have openly stated as their goals. They want to create, in Leibowitz's words, "a society that has people with two sexes and that their gender is automatically what their sex is and that the role of that gender is predefined."

This is where mainstream media coverage fails most catastrophically. By treating anti-trans campaigns as if they emerge from legitimate medical concerns, outlets like the New York Times provide cover for what is essentially an eliminationist political movement. They take groups that explicitly seek to erase transgender people from society and present their arguments as if they represent one reasonable side of a scientific debate.

The pattern is depressingly familiar. Climate change deniers weren't really concerned about scientific methodology — they wanted to prevent action on climate change. Anti-vaccine activists aren't really worried about pharmaceutical safety — they're promoting conspiracy theories that endanger public health. And anti-trans activists aren't really concerned about medical protocols — they're trying to eliminate transgender people from society.

But while mainstream outlets eventually stopped treating climate denial and anti-vaccine conspiracy theories as legitimate scientific positions, they continue to platform anti-trans activists as if their concerns deserve equal weight with actual medical expertise. The New York Times, in particular, has made this false equivalence a cornerstone of its transgender coverage, consistently presenting anti-trans activists as simply a group with legitimate concerns for the safety and well-being of children.

This is why Leibowitz's quote is so important. Here's someone who tried to work within the system, who believed in good faith engagement, who thought better protocols and clearer research might build bridges with critics. And even he has concluded that the opposition isn't interested in improving care — they're interested in eliminating it entirely.

The implications of this realization should reshape how we talk about these issues. When politicians claim they're just trying to protect children from experimental treatments, we should understand that they're really trying to eliminate transgender children from existence. When activists claim they're concerned about research quality, we should recognize that they're actually trying to prevent research that might support transgender people's rights. When media outlets claim they're just asking tough questions about medical protocols, we should see that they're often providing cover for eliminationist political movements.

This doesn't mean that legitimate questions about transgender healthcare don't exist. Medical protocols can always be improved, research methodologies can be refined, and clinical practices can evolve. But these conversations happen within the medical community, among people who accept the basic premise that transgender people exist and deserve appropriate care. They don't happen in legislative chambers where politicians with no medical training vote to criminalize healthcare, or in newspaper columns that treat transgender identity as inherently suspect.

The distinction matters because it determines how we respond to anti-trans campaigns. If these were really good-faith medical concerns, then better research and improved protocols might address them. But since they're actually political campaigns designed to eliminate transgender people from society, the appropriate response is political resistance, not medical capitulation.

Leibowitz learned this lesson through painful experience. He watched as careful, ethical medical practice was criminalized not because it was harmful, but because it affirmed the existence of people that powerful political movements want to erase. He discovered that no amount of scientific evidence can overcome ideological opposition to transgender people's basic humanity.

This is the context that should inform every piece of journalism about transgender issues. When reporters cover anti-trans legislation, they should understand that they're covering a political campaign designed to eliminate a vulnerable minority group, not a legitimate scientific debate. When they interview anti-trans activists, they should treat them as political operatives, not medical experts. And when they write about transgender healthcare, they should center the voices and experiences of transgender people themselves, not the politicians and activists who want them to disappear.

The New York Times' podcast includes this moment of clarity, but it’s not the framing that guides the series. Based on the paper's track record, "The Protocol" glosses over Leibowitz’s perspective, rather than treating it as the key to understanding everything else that follows. The podcast presented eliminationist political campaigns as legitimate medical concerns, giving equal weight to actual expertise and ideological opposition.

But Leibowitz's words offer a different path forward for anyone willing to listen. We can stop pretending that anti-trans campaigns represent good-faith scientific concerns and start recognizing them for what they actually are: political movements designed to eliminate transgender people from society. We can stop treating every anti-trans activist claim as worthy of debate and start understanding that the goal isn't better care — it's no care at all, for trans people of any age.

The doctor who tried to work within the system has delivered a clear message: this isn't about medical protocols or research quality or protecting children. It's about whether transgender people have the right to exist in society at all. Until mainstream media understands this basic truth, their coverage will continue to provide cover for eliminationist campaigns while failing the communities they claim to serve.

Leibowitz figured it out after years of trying to engage in good faith with bad-faith actors. The question is whether journalism will learn the same lesson, or whether it will continue to legitimize political campaigns designed to erase the very people whose stories they claim to tell.

---

The clip:

Azeen Ghorayshi: And so just this question of like, do you think things could have gone another way? As someone who's now lived through a state where the politics have taken away this care, I mean, you were, from everything you're saying, you were trying to do this in the way that you thought was the most ethical and briefly convinced the governor and that was not enough. Do you think that this could have gone another way?

Scott Leibowitz: Yeah, I mean, that's a hard question to answer. I think originally felt very strongly that a lack of consensus on how to approach care was single-handedly responsible for its demise at this moment. But over time, I have really changed my tune internally to think that it really doesn't matter how the care is provided, that there is such a laser-focused mission that has a very well-oiled financial machine behind it, in politics, on the right, that is destined to eliminate trans care and basically trans rights and trans people from existence.

They're just trying to create a society that they feel is ideal and that that's a society that has people with two sexes and that their gender is automatically what their sex is and that the role of that gender is predefined. That is what that side wants and is in power and is able to get. And so because there's zero degree of nuance in today's culture or society, I feel like this was not preventable.

And that's why I think this whole debate, this whole culture war, unfortunately, is hard to solve when people aren't on the fundamental same page about the existence of a trans identity and the fact that it is a valid identity. Like, we all have to agree on one thing before then we can start talking about the nuance.