Struggling to get mad about The Atlantic's latest transphobia laundromat because it is so fucking boring that no one will make it past the first few paragraphs theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
The entire piece is an effort to discredit an obscure, 3-year-old guidance document that tells teachers to call children by their preferred name and pronouns even if their parents object.
This barely even qualifies as an ethical dilemma. Respecting children's wishes over those of their parents is pretty unobjectionable. My parents called me Mickey at home as a kid. I told my teachers to call me Mike and they did. Who cares.
And yet Conor still somehow manages to whip this up into thousands of words of pedantic, hand-wringing tedium. The journal is hypocritical! They should say this is hard, not easy! This won't apply to 100% of children!
Seriously *try* to get through these full paragraphs.
After pushing this intellectual rock up a hill and letting it roll back down for nearly 2,500 words, Conor finally (I think?) settles on the correct outcome: Teachers should call kids what they want.
So in sum, a document you've never heard of is probably fine. Terrific stuff.
This article is a perfect example of how polite transphobia works: Highlight alleged liberal hypocrisy, downplay Republican bigotry and repeatedly insist that a "legitimate debate" is being suppressed.
Conor blithely notes that Virginia is *prohibiting* teachers from using kids' preferred pronouns. Yet it's the random, non-binding "liberal" document he singles out for thousands of words of criticism — even while admitting it's correct on the merits.
Dammit I started tweeting and it turns out it's not such a struggle to get mad.
All of these examples are the opposite of what Jon says they are.
The Michael Brown claim points to a story debunking it. This isn't "epistemic closure," it's a progressive outlet fact-checking progressive politicians, precisely the thing Jon says doesn't happen
The lab leak theory — for which there is still no evidence — has been adopted by the majority of the American public.
Progressive outlets including NYMag, Vanity Fair and ProPublica have all run stories promoting it. This is indeed groupthink, but not in the way Jon means.
"While correct on the merits, these gay people made me uncomfortable."
Fuck off David, LGBTQ rights did not advance because we were polite.
Flaming sewage of an argument. "Culture war" topics like gayness ruin the purity of professional baseball and insult religious bigots who object to our existence.
Note that the "both sides" narrative here doesn't even hold up for an entire paragraph. The Utah "ban" on the Bible was a single complaint by a parent trolling conservatives.
If your own article can't support your thesis maybe write a different article!
Republicans banning books, office workers using ChatGPT and fewer college students majoring in English are not remotely the same trend! You cannot put all of these in the same article and call it a "crisis of reading" what the fuck is wrong with you
Indefensible that the Supreme Court isn't bound by ethics rules but if that's how it's going to work, then justices need to be impeached for showing judgement this bad.
Either he knew what he was doing or he's a total rube. Both scenarios make him unfit for the job.
It seems he's going with the "I'm a dumbass" defense.
Even if the facts he lays out here are true (lol), making a blunder this bad and refusing to admit it should be disqualifying.
https://t.co/SUob4PuXiRwsj.com/articles/propu…
The core problem with centrist punditry on this issue is that they insist on debating trans rights in the abstract.
Are liberal news outlets responsible for reactionary backlash every time they're cited by right-wing politicians? Of course not.
In *this specific case* however, the Times is entrenching a moral panic FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. All of its feature stories derive from the premise that too many kids are transitioning too fast.
This isn't true! And it's exactly the narrative driving right-wing backlash.
Not saying this isn't a real trend but whenever you see a year-on-year change that big your first question should be about the quality of the data. The GSS is notoriously noisy, especially when it comes to population subgroups.
It definitely *feels* like young men are becoming more conservative and it's something I'm really worried about, but if this is a real trend we should be able to find other quantitative indicators.
This is the same data set that got us years of "young men aren't having sex anymore!" takes based on surveys that showed sexlessness going from 10% to almost 30% in a single year, then back to 10% two years later.