This was a tough read. In a supposedly affirming article, why would you mention the 88% detransition success rate multiple times when you’re going to bury the fact that the study has methodological flaws at the very bottom of the article in tiny footnotes?
Do trans people not face enough systemic barriers?
Sometimes in the effort of making a topic palatable, it’s stripped of its sprit completely.
If this was published by The Sun or something I’d understand as a positive - at least it’s an article not bent on demonization and at least advances a nuanced and humanized view -, but from the Walrus… this level of two-sidedness is probably in the lower end of what the readership expects already?
Still, I thought it was insightful. I still don’t read as many feature-length trans testimonial/articles like this as I probably should.
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: !canada@lemmy.ca
This was a tough read. In a supposedly affirming article, why would you mention the 88% detransition success rate multiple times when you’re going to bury the fact that the study has methodological flaws at the very bottom of the article in tiny footnotes?
Do trans people not face enough systemic barriers?
Permanently deleted
Sometimes in the effort of making a topic palatable, it’s stripped of its sprit completely.
If this was published by The Sun or something I’d understand as a positive - at least it’s an article not bent on demonization and at least advances a nuanced and humanized view -, but from the Walrus… this level of two-sidedness is probably in the lower end of what the readership expects already?
Still, I thought it was insightful. I still don’t read as many feature-length trans testimonial/articles like this as I probably should.
I agree. Important conversations, strange format choice. I do expect better of the Walrus.