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. ImageImage
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. ImageImage
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. Image
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. Image
Dammit I started tweeting and it turns out it's not such a struggle to get mad.
aaaand there it is. Behind all the mellifluous prose Conor knows exactly whose message he's promoting. Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Hobbes

Michael Hobbes Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RottenInDenmark

Jan 12
This is already being framed as "Government Walks Back Plan To Ban Gas Stoves" but it was never a plan, only one option among many.
And the "ban" basically meant they were going to be phased out, not that some bureaucrat would go door-to-door confiscating appliances.
It's a perfect example of how nearly every story about "left-wing overreach" is really a story about irresponsible or bad-faith media coverage.
Gas stoves are objectively harmful! It's reasonable for a consumer safety agency to consider options for reducing their prevalence.
I disagree. This entire "controversy" is manufactured from a quote taken out of context. The journalist easily could have clarified that "ban" in this context means stopping import or manufacture of *new* gas stoves.
ImageImage
Read 6 tweets
Jan 10
Media orgs know Republicans are going to pretend this is a scandal so they've decided to treat it as a news story. Journalistic "objectivity" and conservative bad faith, pooping back and forth forever.
As far as I can tell, Biden's lawyers stumbled upon some classified documents in one of his old offices and immediately turned them over. The Justice Dept is now investigating.
Everyone seems to be acting out of an abundance of caution and transparency but it won't matter.
We're already getting comparisons to Trump deliberately taking documents, lying about it and refusing to give them back.
The entire point of turning over the papers immediately and cooperating with an investigation is to provide a *contrast* to Trump. But again: Doesn't matter.
Read 5 tweets
Jan 4
Kind of impressive to do reactionary centrism in an essay complaining about reactionary centrism.
nymag.com/intelligencer/…
I actually agree with Chait that his own work reflects the fact that the right is a greater threat than the left. He writes a lot of good columns about what's going on with conservatives these days.
But reactionary centrism isn't just about how *much* you talk about left-wing activists but *how* you talk about them.
Chait consistently exaggerates and mischaracterizes left-wing demands.
Who, specifically, says writers should never criticize the left? This is absurd.
Read 7 tweets
Jan 4
“No basic ones” — except the central premise of my life’s work
Population growth was already slowing when Paul wrote his book. Instead of pushing back against the right-wing Malthusian bullshit bouncing around the culture he gave it an environmentalist sheen.
Greatest regret with this episode is that we barely scratched the surface of how deranged this book is. The dude was advocating to sterilize entire countries and then force people to apply for the antidote if they wanted to have kids.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 2
Conspiracy-mongering nonsense. I have never heard a single person, cis or trans, argue that detransitioners don't exist or shouldn't be researched.
And yet here is ANOTHER "you can't even talk about detransitioners!" article.
reuters.com/investigates/s…
In reality, the *majority* of coverage of youth transition has focused on detransitioners. Despite the fact that — AS THE ARTICLE ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGES — all evidence indicates detransition is rare.
The only studies showing higher numbers either rely on sketchy methodologies (people who stopped getting prescriptions?!) or include participants who never received gender-affirming care in the first place.
Read 6 tweets
Jan 2
Look just because this guy's one idea has been wrong for 50 years doesn't mean we shouldn't quote him saying it again.
Not wrong like he predicted the Bengals would win the Super Bowl and they lost. Wrong like "inspired a decades-long wave of forced sterilizations."
"this guy has been disastrously wrong about everything he's ever said but what our news special presupposes is ... what if he wasn't?"
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(