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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.