1/ I'm completely against all the laws being discussed here, but this NYT piece first argues, without evidence, that few mastectomies are being given to minors (anecdotally, I'd say that's completely false), then, a bit later, mentions a kid going on hormones at 12. This is very 
2/ much against all the published guidelines I'm aware of. If THOSE guidelines aren't being followed, why is the reporter so confident the surgery ones are? The answer is that reporters are relying on a very small group of activists for their information on this subject, and
3/chronically conveying misinformation and missing context to readers as a result. This same article also brushes aside desistance as though no one believes in it, even though every major mainstream organization's (as far as I know) published guidelines still treat it as a common
4/ occurrence (which it is).
The zigzagging dance these reporters do -- sometimes referencing official guidelines, sometimes ignoring them, always in the service of lining their reporting up exactly with a very specific activist narrative -- just isn't good journalism at all.
The zigzagging dance these reporters do -- sometimes referencing official guidelines, sometimes ignoring them, always in the service of lining their reporting up exactly with a very specific activist narrative -- just isn't good journalism at all.
5/ None of these pieces ever, EVER mention the possibility of experimentation -- shorter hair, different clothes, whatever -- without immediate social transition. Instead, the fact that the kid felt better w/shorter hair is treated as proof that really, they were male inside.
6/ Last point but activists have been wildly successful misleading everyone about desistance. Paper of record is now sayingthat the single most likely outcome, in the studies we have, for a kid with gender dsyphoria is in fact rare. This is harmful, irresponsible journalism.
