The right thing to do journalistically

Brother’s visit was a good one. While he was here we went to supper with Sister and two nieces, one bringing her wife, a pleasant time. It’s been a week since I last posted. In that time I accumulated more than 40 browser tabs of stories to share. That brings me to 187 tabs after recently saying I had never gone over 175. Maybe I’ll get to them over the next week and maybe I’ll decide they’re no longer worth discussing. So don’t keep count. More than a week ago I was in the midst of a debate with my friend and debate partner. He doesn’t actually debate me all that often. It is a friendship that has spanned 30 years. Many months can pass between “debates,” which is usually him sending comments by email (never an actual comment in the blog) in response to something I wrote. Sometimes I see it is important to whatever I wrote – usually a rebuttal – and worth sharing. There had never been three debates within ten days (with my reply now delayed by a week). That’s a long way of saying my friend responded to my post “Freedom to oppress...” I had written about GLAAD’s criticism of the New York Times for the portrayal of transgender people in some of the opinion pieces. Marissa Higgins of Daily Kos complained about one op-ed piece by Times columnist Pamela Paul. She wrote in defense of JK Rowling, who many call a transphobe. Part of what I wrote was that because of what I read in Kos I don’t trust the Times and how Paul’s article (as reported by Higgins) didn’t change my opinion. I scanned my posts and see I first referenced Kos back in 2008 shortly after I started this blog. I took a break from Kos in 2010-2013, but it has been a primary source of news for the last nine years. I’ve mentioned or discussed articles I read in Kos a few hundred times. My friend avoids Kos the same way I avoid the Times. He did venture into Kos in response to my previous post to read what Higgins wrote. From his perspective he sees plenty of reasons to keep avoiding it. He described it as, “Too many right answers, not enough questions. The basic mistake of nearly all religions.” I think he happened to visit the site at a time when the sidebar of recent and recommended posts included debate between atheists and believers written by the Kos community and not produced by Kos staff. I’m sure that bit of info won’t encourage my friend to visit again. Friend did list several things he hopes we can agree on: In the US and many Western European countries the attitude towards LGBTQ people has change dramatically towards one of acceptance as full humans. Even so, many religious groups locally and across the world keep their traditional condemnation of homosexuality and other kinds of sexual and gender variation. Because of that many families reject their LGBTQ family members and one political party is championing LGBTQ oppression. And these unchanged people have far too many guns. In addition, many other countries, especially Russia, still criminalize and oppress LGBTQ people and many remain closeted. Friend then said that because so many people (and the institutions and government they control) have not yet come to accept LGBTQ people and not yet understand our full humanity, we and our allies are engaging in destructive behavior. That is we – people like Higgins – “demand that our institutions ... behave as if the revolution is complete and in place, all controversies resolved, the doubts of all citizens erased.” This is “leftist bullying” as bad as conservative bullying. Friend also found Paul’s article on the Times website and sent the text to me. The text says to find it online here. He listed what he believes are the many assumptions Higgins wrote that he said are just not true. I’ll mention one example. The rest are incidental.

The Times failure to treat a topic according to Higgins' preferences constitutes the spreading of misinformation. That can only be true when you accept only one side of an incomplete revolution.

So I looked at the way the Times, in particular Paul, treated the topic. It is a lot milder than I thought it might be. Paul begins by quoting some of the pro-trans things JK Rowling has said. I’m glad Rowling said them. Then Paul wrote what is at the core of Higgins’ complaint.

So why would anyone accuse her of transphobia? Surely, Rowling must have played some part, you might think. The answer is straightforward: Because she has asserted the right to spaces for biological women only, such as domestic abuse shelters and sex-segregated prisons. Because she has insisted that when it comes to determining a person’s legal gender status, self-declared gender identity is insufficient. Because she has expressed skepticism about phrases like “people who menstruate” in reference to biological women. Because she has defended herself and, far more important, supported others, including detransitioners and feminist scholars, who have come under attack from trans activists. And because she followed on Twitter and praised some of the work of Magdalen Berns, a lesbian feminist who had made incendiary comments about transgender people. You might disagree — perhaps strongly — with Rowling’s views and actions here. You may believe that the prevalence of violence against transgender people means that airing any views contrary to those of vocal trans activists will aggravate animus toward a vulnerable population. But nothing Rowling has said qualifies as transphobic. She is not disputing the existence of gender dysphoria. She has never voiced opposition to allowing people to transition under evidence-based therapeutic and medical care. She is not denying transgender people equal pay or housing. There is no evidence that she is putting trans people “in danger,” as has been claimed, nor is she denying their right to exist.

Good to hear Rowling does not dispute gender dysphoria, that she does approve of transgender people’s right to exist, to approve of transition, to support equal pay and housing, and is not putting trans people in danger. Good to see Paul recognize that. But Paul, who does not say she is transgender or a part of the LGBTQ community, does not get to decide whether Rowling is transphobic. Transgender people do. That’s in the same way that white people do not get to decide whether they or other white people are racist – there are many things white people don’t recognize as racism that black people experience as oppression. And from the trans person’s point of view Rowling making a distinction between “biological” women and trans women and saying one needs space that excludes the other is transphobic. Denying self-declaration as sufficient to determine if someone is trans is transphobic. Supporting people who are transphobic is transphobic. Though I’m not transgender I am part of the LGBTQ community. Even with that deciding what is transphobic isn’t up to me. Alas, I don’t have a trans co-author, so I’m giving an idea what trans people likely think of what Paul wrote. Higgins’ point, and that of everyone else who signed the letter condemning the Times, including me, is that the Times and its columnist made an error in deciding for trans people what transphobia means. In other similar situations we call it “mansplaining.” What the letter is calling the Times to do is hire some actual trans people to avoid these sorts of errors in the future. Friend wrote:

It is foolish for its advocates to feel entitled to support and agreement from everyone else. That behavior is destructive – it prevents the winning of new allies.

I have a different take on this and imagine Higgins and other LGBTQ advocates do to. When a voice in the society speaks against us, or even speaks with incomplete knowledge, we demand they improve. This voice might be an influential news and opinion source, such as the Times, a celebrity with a platform that comes with being a celebrity, a corporate leader, a politician, or someone with a Facebook or Twitter account. Demanding they do better is how we improve the society’s perception of us. This is not bullying! It is not feeling entitled to support and agreement. Demands have been a part of the public protest language since protests began. When students were shot at Michigan State University they rightly demanded the Michigan legislature and the US Congress pass laws to stop these mass shootings from happening. Framing our complaints as a suggestion won’t get us anywhere. Constructive criticism will – especially when the letter sent to the Times includes details of what we believe is wrong with what they wrote and a list of ways to improve. I had written most of this post yesterday. During a break in writing I listened to yesterday’s All Things Considered on NPR. Host Michel Martin talked to their media correspondent David Folkenflik about this controversy at the Times. I think this story is balanced and without rancor. They mention the letter sent by trans activists, the support from within the ranks of Times journalists, and the response from senior editors, who are not backing down. Folkenflik, in his summary, said:

Yeah. I think it's, in some ways, about the Times present and some ways about how the Times will be looked back on in the role of journalism, right? So, you know, if you think back to how the Times covered gay rights and gay people, it was for decades dismissive, condescending, patronizing or antagonistic, hostile in a way that the Times ultimately had to grapple with a few decades ago and come to terms with and change the way they approached this. And a number of Times journalists said to me they don't want to have to look back on the way the Times has approached this now and think of this as a place that has cultivated a panic or contributed to a society that treats trans people as less than or less consequential than others. And yet the Times still wants to be able to say it's distilling these issues through a journalistic prism and not a political one. They don't want to take such care as a political stance or because of pressure. They want to do so because it's the right thing to do journalistically. Navigating that, I think, is going to be a very fine line for the Times as they see these voices inside and outside the newsroom raised in critique. ... The question of harm is an important one. You're hearing people who signed that letter, particularly people who are themselves trans people, say I'm being negated here because the overwhelming direction of coverage is raising questions about this kind of medical care without having an equal or greater amount of attention being given to, what are the repercussions if those youths are not given certain kinds of medical care? By the same token, I think there are a number of senior executives at the Times who are signaling they don't want to be intimidated from looking carefully at issues which are not yet settled, which do have implications even if the numbers are relatively small.

Note the phrase “not yet settled.” Trans people and their doctors say the issues and the science are settled. It is only conservatives, who want to demonize trans people, who say they aren’t. My Sunday movie was The Half of It on Netflix. The opening sequence describes the idea told by Aristophanes that at birth a soul is divided in two and many of us spend our lives searching for the other half to complete ourselves. Sometimes we find that half and experience love, sometimes we don’t. The story is a loose adaptation of Cyrano de Bergerac. Paul, a high school jock not good with words, has a crush on Aster. But he want help to attract her attention. So he turns to Ellie Chu, a straight A student who writes other student’s papers for a fee. The complication is that Ellie also has a crush on Aster. Though Paul does send a few letters, a good deal of the help is through text messaging as Ellie monitors the date through the window. Aster may think she’s texting Paul, but it goes to Ellie’s phone, leaving Paul wondering what she said. There are some nice twists in the story, such as Paul and Ellie really caring for each other. All this takes place in the fictional town of Squahamish, Washington (there is a real town named Suquamish), though filming was done in upstate New York. It is is a sweet tale, well told. The ending is satisfying, but not what one expects.

Freedom to oppress. Freedom from oppression.

I don’t read the New York Times, and I’m not tempted to pay for a subscription to get behind its paywall. I also don’t trust their coverage based on what I read in Daily Kos. However, my friend and debate partner, who is originally from the Big Apple, does subscribe and does read it regularly. The NYT is known as the paper of record for its lack of bias and its balanced reporting. Because of that it is used as a source for a variety of topics by members of Congress. That is important. A couple days ago I got an email from GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (the organization was formed before society paid much attention to Bisexual and Transgender, back when Queer was considered a slur before it was reclaimed as a badge of honor). GLAAD does such things as monitor TV, movies, and print publications (whatever “print” means these days). They protest defamatory portrayals of our community and they present Media Awards each year to those TV shows and movies with the most positive portrayals. I’m on GLAAD’s email list, though I’m not a financial supporter. The email urged me to sign an open latter to the Times demanding they stop giving voice to people who mischaracterize and harm transgender people. Most of these voices are through opinion pieces, which don’t have the same requirements of accuracy. I read the letter and added my name. There are many important LGBTQ people and many celebrities who also signed. The letter listed demands, including no longer giving voice to anti-trans bigots and their hateful misinformation and hiring a few trans people to guide the paper’s coverage. I forwarded the GLAAD email to my friend, saying this is why I don’t trust the Times. We had lunch together to day. As part of our discussion of many things he said he saw my email and marked it for later reading. He also was surprised that the Times would allow such misuse of its impartiality, though he said he doesn’t read all of the Times. My friend wondered if I have any examples of this biased portrayal of trans people. Marissa Higgins of Kos provides an example. JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books (which I read and saw the movies too), has become notorious for being a transphobe. Rowling reasons that she is defending women. Higgins replies that trans women are women. The people women need defending from are men. Much of Higgins post is about an opinion piece by Pamela Paul, a Times op-ed columnist, who defended Rowling’s transphobia. I won’t go into every one of Higgins’ rebuttals to what Paul wrote, though it is good reading for those who want to understand transgender people. I will note that it matters because this is not the only transphobic opinion piece in the Times. And because they appear in the Times they are given an air of impartiality (when they clearly are not) and transphobic lawmakers are able to say, “See! The Times agrees that trans people are dangerous!” That gives cover to anti-trans laws they propose and pass. And that leads to harm and death of trans people. Higgins also provides a link to the letter and includes a response from the Times, which essentially says they stand by their reporting. Which increases my mistrust of the Times. Dartagnan of the Kos community what would be involved in blue (or red) states seceding from the country. He references the article These Disunited States by Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson that appeared in the New York Review of Books. Dartagnan begins by noting many of the reasons why the two sides may not want to live together, though the reasons come down to: Freedom to one group means freedom to oppress. Freedom for the other group means freedom from oppression. There are disagreements over gun availability and what to do with militia groups. Over being “woke” or “anti-woke” – whether we should acknowledge our oppression of targeted groups to stop being oppressive or ban acknowledging that oppression so that it can be perpetuated. Over whether America is a “Christian” nation that gives conservative Christians control of national laws. Over whether abortion is a right and women have control over their own bodies. Over whether the Supreme Court can rule from on high without considering a justice’s own ethics. Over whether rich people are taxed fairly and poor people are offered a meaningful social safety net. Over who gets a good quality education. Over who is allowed access to affordable health care. Over whether workers are left to the oppression of bosses. Over whether we should do something about climate change. I’m sure there are many other issues Dartagnan (and I) left out. Dartagnan wrote:

Given the seemingly implacable divisions that already exist in this country, it’s not particularly apocalyptic anymore to imagine a point where the majority populations in “blue” states simply refuse to bow to this court’s edicts and opt to go it alone.

Add to that the conservative introduction of violent intimidation and sense that they were ordained to rule. Because of all that America is already essentially binational, with two sharply opposed communities under one federal government in which each thinks the other poses a mortal threat to the country. If Congress remains divided after the 2024 election, no matter which party takes the White House states that are predominantly the other party may begin discussions of secession – amicable separation – and begin collaboration with other like-minded states. Since red and blue states are somewhat intermingled there won’t be a clear division as there was in the Civil War. There would also be a great deal of political migration. And violence. Perhaps the danger could be lessened with the federal government changed to handle the military and national infrastructure and leaving everything else to the states. However, most Democrats see the federal government as the most practical way of redressing injustice and protecting minorities. And most Republicans want the federal government to be the enforcer of oppression. There would be issues to work out – how to handle Social Security, national health, the distribution of energy, maintaining infrastructure, and how to keep the military from being used by one side against the other. Conservatives vow to step up their oppression and are doing so in Texas and Florida. They are showing exactly what they intend to do if they win the presidency. Splitting the country is an extremely unpleasant thought. But it is better to think about it now rather than when it is too late. Lean McElrath, quoting and linking to an article in the Daily Beast, tweeted:

“DeSantis Now Says Teachers Are Shelving Books to Make Him Look Bad” The only thing worse than a bully is a whining bully who plays victim. Oh, wait, that’s the entire current Republican Party. For a group who adhere to a belief “traditional” white culture is supreme, Republicans repeatedly reveal they see themselves as victimized weaklings. I’m as white as one can be by ancestral or aesthetic metrics and find it pathetic. I can only imagine how non-white people feel. “We’re white, cis, heterosexual men. We created the bestest most important strongest culture on earth and must defend it until death!” But also: “We’re being defeated and made to look bad by all those other mean icky people so they must be attacked! Waaaaah waaah waaah!” You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to be a bigot, at least have some dignity.

Rob Rogers tweeted a cartoon of Ron DeathSantis writing “Don’t Say Gay!” at the front of a classroom and a black student asking, “Governor DeSantis, were you born a bigot or is that a lifestyle choice?” Jesse Duquette tweeted a cartoon of Goldwater (I think) of the 1960s saying “States’ Rights,” Nixon in the 70s saying, “Southern Strategy,” Reagan in the 80s saying, “Welfare Queens,” and DeathSantis in the 2020s saying “Woke.” The caption says, “Different code, same Klan.”