Laws and Letters

With some regularity, I’ve argued why “law is hard.” To put together words with sufficiently precise definitions and limiting principles so as to say exactly what’s intended, and to do so within the bounds of the Constitution, is a daunting task at best. When applied to such fraught concepts as race or gender identity, it’s damn near impossible. In fact, it may well be impossible, as no one has as yet been able to accomplish the task.

It is not, contrary to what shallower minds understand, to say that there are not very real problems arising that a great many people feel requires redress, requires government intervention by the creation of a law to prevent insidious activists from “sneaking” it into education, discourse and indoctrination. That there are some who see no problem with it doesn’t mean it’s somehow wrong that others see a very real problem, and reject the notion that there is nothing they can do to prevent the infiltration of ideas they deem dangerous, radical or harmful from being taught to their children.

The problem is that the blunt weapon of law, made up of the even blunter weapon of words, isn’t a viable solution. Like it or not, the First Amendment prohibits such laws, and that’s a good thing even if it works against your wishes this time.

But while law is hard, letters are easy. There is no First Amendment prohibition against people writing letters, whether private or open, whether to persuade or demand, whether to influence by reason or to impose dogma by threat.

Two letters, both open, have been directed to the New York Times. The first, primarily from GLAAD and joined by many similarly concerned organizations, condemns the Times for publishing “inaccurate and harmful” articles and op-eds about trans folk.

The New York Times has long been the standard for excellence in journalism: A media outlet that New Yorkers, Americans, and people around the world looked to for ethical, thorough reporting, and thoughtful opinion pieces. But for more than a year, the New York Times has stood for something else: irresponsible, biased coverage of transgender people. The Times has repeatedly platformed cisgender (non-transgender) people spreading inaccurate and harmful misinformation about transgender people and issues. This is damaging to the paper’s credibility. And it is damaging to all LGBTQ people, especially our youth, who say debates about trans equality negatively impact their mental health, which is a contributing factor to the high suicide rates for LGBTQ youth.

It is appalling that the Times would dedicate so many resources and pages to platforming the voices of extremist anti-LGBTQ activists who have built their careers on denigrating and dehumanizing LGBTQ people, especially transgender people. While there have been a few fair stories, mostly human interest stories, those articles are not getting front-page placement or sent to app users via push notification like the irresponsible pieces are.

THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY AND OUR ALLIES HAVE HAD ENOUGH AND WE DEMAND THE NEW YORK TIMES TAKE ACTION.

The second, by hundreds of Times contributors such as Roxane Gay and Ed Yong, suggests that the Times’ anti-trans bias has tested their “forbearance.”

Some of us are trans, non⁠-⁠binary, or gender nonconforming, and we resent the fact that our work, but not our person, is good enough for the paper of record. Some of us are cis, and we have seen those we love discover and fight for their true selves, often swimming upstream against currents of bigotry and pseudoscience fomented by the kind of coverage we here protest. All of us daresay our stance is unremarkable, even common, and certainly not deserving of the Times’ intense scrutiny. A tiny percentage of the population is trans, and an even smaller percentage of those people face the type of conflict the Times is so intent on magnifying. There is no rapt reporting on the thousands of parents who simply love and support their children, or on the hardworking professionals at the New York Times enduring a workplace made hostile by bias—a period of forbearance that ends today.

The condemnation is leveled at such writers as Emily Bazelon, of all people, for the crime of using the phrase “patient zero,” which they argue suggests that being transgender is a disease.

For example, Emily Bazelon’s article “The Battle Over Gender Therapy” uncritically used the term “patient zero” to refer to a trans child seeking gender⁠-⁠affirming care, a phrase that vilifies transness as a disease to be feared. Bazelon quoted multiple expert sources who have since expressed regret over their work’s misrepresentation. Another source, Grace Lidinksy⁠-⁠Smith, was identified as an individual person speaking about a personal choice to detransition, rather than the President of GCCAN, an activist organization that pushes junk science and partners with explicitly anti⁠-⁠trans hate groups.

Another focal point was Katie Baker’s article about schools not telling parents about their students transitioning.

In a similar case, Katie Baker’s recent feature “When Students Change Gender Identity and Parents Don’t Know” misframed the battle over children’s right to safely transition. The piece fails to make clear that court cases brought by parents who want schools to out their trans children are part of a legal strategy pursued by anti-trans hate groups. These groups have identified trans people as an “existential threat to society” and seek to replace the American public education system with Christian homeschooling, key context Baker did not provide to Times readers.

When a bad law is enacted in violation of the Constitution, challenge can be brought in court to overturn the law as being in violation of the First Amendment. Writing letters is also protected speech, and these organizations and contributors have a constitutional right to express their view that the New York Times coverage of transgender issues is inaccurate and harmful. And there is no lawsuit that can be brought to blunt the implicit threat that if the Times doesn’t capitulate to their demands, there will be consequences.

Ironically, or maybe deliberately, columnist Pamela Paul defends J.K. Rowling today, who has become a lightning rod of hatred by trans activists for her heresy of rejecting the orthodox line. Will Roxane Gay have something thoughtful to say in reply?