The New York Times has faced criticism for its coverage of transgender issues, with some articles echoing right-wing talking points and questioning whether being trans is acceptable. Trans advocates have expressed concerns about a lack of trans voices in reporting. While Times staff generally care about the issues, coverage does not seem to receive the same rigor as other topics. An open letter signed by over 1,200 contributors called for addressing biases, but the Times did not acknowledge it. Some staff believe leadership does not fully accept the humanity of trans people. However, public backlash is starting to make the Times reconsider its approach to trans coverage.
Yeah I think this is a pretty valid concern. It’s similar but more subtle to what explicitly happened at the Economist.
The New York Times would never allow op-eds or culture articles wondering guilelessly whether Jews are actually who they say they are, whether they regret their religion, or indeed if Jewish identity exists at all. They’d never pen multi-page articles tenderly and sympathetically exploring the lives of those opposed to Black people’s political and social power. Yet that’s totally okay when it comes to trans people.
The Gray Lady’s assumptions about the questions that are permissible to ask about trans identity need to shift to match expectations around any other minority identity.
Same thing with The Guardian, where their feminist opinion pieces were written by an actively transphobic woman for a long time after it was considered not-cool.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Yeah I think this is a pretty valid concern. It’s similar but more subtle to what explicitly happened at the Economist.
The New York Times would never allow op-eds or culture articles wondering guilelessly whether Jews are actually who they say they are, whether they regret their religion, or indeed if Jewish identity exists at all. They’d never pen multi-page articles tenderly and sympathetically exploring the lives of those opposed to Black people’s political and social power. Yet that’s totally okay when it comes to trans people.
The Gray Lady’s assumptions about the questions that are permissible to ask about trans identity need to shift to match expectations around any other minority identity.
Same thing with The Guardian, where their feminist opinion pieces were written by an actively transphobic woman for a long time after it was considered not-cool.
The people at the top don’t believe in anyone’s humanity other than their own.
They probably believe in the humanity of other rich white men.
Not so much - but they know not to mess with them until they’re absolutely sure they can take them.
I dunno, isn’t this is kinda like saying “all lives matter?” Okay sure, but maybe let’s talk about trans people and trans problems.
That’s not how I meant it. I’m just saying the wealthy are depraved as fuck.
I agree that we all need to protect trans people.
Non-paywalled link: https://archive.ph/6Qql6