Why is the NY Times seemingly so Anti-Trans?
July 26, 2023 8:30 AM Subscribe
Imara Jones and the Translash Podcast capture the story of a trans former NYT staffer. "Hunter" joined the New York Times and thought they found their journalistic home. This podcast, part of a series on the Anti-Trans Hate Machine series, captures how the paper of record seems to have made a deliberate choice to actively court right-wing voices, especially those who peddle disinformation about trans people, which came to a head in April.
"seemingly?"
posted by logicpunk at 9:14 AM on July 26, 2023 [32 favorites]
posted by logicpunk at 9:14 AM on July 26, 2023 [32 favorites]
Why do we give the Times our attention? Just stop reading it.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:33 AM on July 26, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:33 AM on July 26, 2023 [11 favorites]
@Your Childhood Pet Rock:
I see that you hate "liberals." Not so clear on why you decline to assign any responsibility to anyone at the Times.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:33 AM on July 26, 2023 [17 favorites]
I see that you hate "liberals." Not so clear on why you decline to assign any responsibility to anyone at the Times.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:33 AM on July 26, 2023 [17 favorites]
Touché!
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:37 AM on July 26, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:37 AM on July 26, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'm wondering about how much anonymity the person being interviewed has, unless a lot of their story has the details changed. Won the Ugly Christmas Sweater contest with a blazer?
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 9:43 AM on July 26, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 9:43 AM on July 26, 2023 [1 favorite]
Things make a lot more sense once you realize that any time the New York Times comes into conflict with a Republican it’s because the Republican wants the freedom to go fully mask-off with their bigotry while the NYT wants the sort of fascists you can invite to a dinner party.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 9:46 AM on July 26, 2023 [42 favorites]
posted by Parasite Unseen at 9:46 AM on July 26, 2023 [42 favorites]
Why do we give the Times our attention? Just stop reading it
God I wish but lots of people, including my mom, read the NYT and take it very, very seriously and it's exhausting for me as a trans person to keep needing to explain patiently in ways people (again, my mom) will hear that the newspaper is doing a lot of harm but unfortunately it keeps existing and having a negative influence on the lives of many people including me so much as I would love to do so I can't ignore it.
posted by an octopus IRL at 9:48 AM on July 26, 2023 [37 favorites]
God I wish but lots of people, including my mom, read the NYT and take it very, very seriously and it's exhausting for me as a trans person to keep needing to explain patiently in ways people (again, my mom) will hear that the newspaper is doing a lot of harm but unfortunately it keeps existing and having a negative influence on the lives of many people including me so much as I would love to do so I can't ignore it.
posted by an octopus IRL at 9:48 AM on July 26, 2023 [37 favorites]
The Times is the "newspaper of record." Despite a long track record of transphobia and homophobia, they're still cited by conservatives as an unassailable bipartisan voice of reason.
So even though it's known by us that the Times has a hate-on for trans folks, we can't choose to ignore it, because inevitably their reporting will get cited in Congress and in the Senate.
posted by explosion at 10:15 AM on July 26, 2023 [14 favorites]
So even though it's known by us that the Times has a hate-on for trans folks, we can't choose to ignore it, because inevitably their reporting will get cited in Congress and in the Senate.
posted by explosion at 10:15 AM on July 26, 2023 [14 favorites]
still cited by conservatives as an unassailable bipartisan voice of reason
and also at the same time the voice of Satan, because they're fascists. Maddening that.
Fuck what they say and think.
[ETA: It is a shit "news"paper, to be clear. Oh so shit.]
posted by riverlife at 10:43 AM on July 26, 2023 [3 favorites]
and also at the same time the voice of Satan, because they're fascists. Maddening that.
Fuck what they say and think.
[ETA: It is a shit "news"paper, to be clear. Oh so shit.]
posted by riverlife at 10:43 AM on July 26, 2023 [3 favorites]
‘Focus relentlessly on under 25’: Leaked chats reveal influential gender-critical group’s plan to use children to push for bans on transitioning
Genspect’s staff, and especially their advisory board members, have appeared as experts in transgender care in publications across the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. It claims to represent thousands of people and 25 organizations.posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:44 AM on July 26, 2023 [22 favorites]
Alongside other members of Genspect, O’Malley has tried to launder claims not backed up by evidence into Britain’s National Health Service consultations about trans healthcare, including the false claim that social transition and medical interventions do nothing to reduce death by suicide among trans patients.
She has been recorded saying that she believes porn causes children to be trans, and that her goal is to prevent 100% of youth transitions.
But nowhere does this appear on the Genspect website, as the group portrays itself to be a moderate, evidence-based coalition of concerned parents and clinicians. It explicitly state that trans people are not only welcome in their group, but that transition should be permitted.
Genspect hosts conferences with other gender critical figures, and recently launched a think tank, the Killarney Group, to provide guidelines for transgender medical care as an alternative to the research-backed WPATH, accepted by clinicians worldwide as the standard for care.
In 2021, Genspect in tandem with other groups, launched the Gender Exploratory Therapists’ Association (GETA), a roster of therapeutic professionals that claims to “provide thoughtful care without pushing ideological or political agendas.”
On its media page, Genspect offers journalists the opportunity to connect to parents who do not affirm their children’s identity, many of whom are present in the group’s discord and discuss, with displeasure, their children’s choices.
Parents in Genspect were featured last year in a New York Times article that spurred sharp criticism from some of the paper’s employees for platforming transphobia.
How many anti trans articles does it take to go from seemingly to blatantly?
posted by Jacen at 10:46 AM on July 26, 2023 [15 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 10:46 AM on July 26, 2023 [15 favorites]
Thanks for posting. I'm a cis straight guy, and I just discovered Imara's podcast literally a week before this first page post. I found the podcast because I was curious as to why we were getting such an upsurge in anti-trans media coverage after so many years of trans issues being treated with semi-benign neglect (at least compared to what we have now). If you haven't listened to the entire podcast series, I highly recommend that you do so, because it has very concrete information about where anti-trans ideologies are coming from, including the Alliance for Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council (and its numerous front group affiliates), Regnery Publishing, 4thWaveNow, Genspect, and yes The New York Times.
I would highly encourage people to engage with the content of the Anti-Trans Hate Machine podcast, before engaging in liberal bashing from the left. I like to think of myself as simultaneously left and liberal, and that creating coalitions and popular fronts are better than insisting on purity and self-marginalization.
On the other hand, whether you're more liberal or left, it's high time we started realizing that the right wing are better Gramscians than we are these days. Right-wingers aren't just satisfied with staying within their own little enclaves. They want to win the "war of position" by forcing their way into previous left and liberal spaces. In other words, it's not enough to have conservative social media like Parler or Gab or Truth Social; they want to take over Twitter too and vandalize it. Steve Bannon doesn't just want Clinton conspiracy theories circulating among the usual conservative suspects; instead, he subsidizes Peter Schweitzer and his book Clinton Cash to seed doubts about Hillary Clinton in the New York Times. (Remember all those stories about the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One? They slid down the memory hole after they served their purpose in 2016.)
Similarly, the Anti-Trans Hate Machine podcast shows that the anti-trans tilt of the New York Times is being pushed by the nepo baby publisher A.G. Sulzberger, who literally said he wanted the Times to look less like a "liberal rag." Even though the subscriber base of the Times is liberal (based on my read of what comments get upvoted the most), Sulzberger wants to grow his circulation by targeting moderates and conservatives. And the way that he is doing that is by focusing on trans issues. Trans issues are perfect for Sulzberger's project of ideologically re-positioning the Times, because an anti-trans tilt in coverage is way of signaling, "We may be liberal, but we're not that liberal." In addition, Sulzberger is not merely acquiring a new subscriber base; he has found an issue that has the potential to push existing liberal subscribers rightward.
The podcast is really good about naming names of specific people who are responsible for the anti-trans tilt. Aside from Sulzberger, the main responsible parties are executive editor Dean Baquet, managing editor Carolyn Ryan, and one-time book review editor Pamela Paul. Baquet and Ryan mainly play a role in disciplining younger, more progressive LGBTQ staff and their allies, while Paul served a more ideological function as book review editor and op-ed columnist. For example, the podcast mentions how Pamela Paul assigned known transphobe Jesse Singal to review a book on trans issues, and the flimsy rationale she gave for assigning Singal was that she couldn't find any other writer who wanted to write a review on that book.
If you want to learn why even some liberals are being pushed in a more anti-trans direction than they were five years ago, this podcast is essential listening.
posted by jonp72 at 10:58 AM on July 26, 2023 [50 favorites]
I would highly encourage people to engage with the content of the Anti-Trans Hate Machine podcast, before engaging in liberal bashing from the left. I like to think of myself as simultaneously left and liberal, and that creating coalitions and popular fronts are better than insisting on purity and self-marginalization.
On the other hand, whether you're more liberal or left, it's high time we started realizing that the right wing are better Gramscians than we are these days. Right-wingers aren't just satisfied with staying within their own little enclaves. They want to win the "war of position" by forcing their way into previous left and liberal spaces. In other words, it's not enough to have conservative social media like Parler or Gab or Truth Social; they want to take over Twitter too and vandalize it. Steve Bannon doesn't just want Clinton conspiracy theories circulating among the usual conservative suspects; instead, he subsidizes Peter Schweitzer and his book Clinton Cash to seed doubts about Hillary Clinton in the New York Times. (Remember all those stories about the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One? They slid down the memory hole after they served their purpose in 2016.)
Similarly, the Anti-Trans Hate Machine podcast shows that the anti-trans tilt of the New York Times is being pushed by the nepo baby publisher A.G. Sulzberger, who literally said he wanted the Times to look less like a "liberal rag." Even though the subscriber base of the Times is liberal (based on my read of what comments get upvoted the most), Sulzberger wants to grow his circulation by targeting moderates and conservatives. And the way that he is doing that is by focusing on trans issues. Trans issues are perfect for Sulzberger's project of ideologically re-positioning the Times, because an anti-trans tilt in coverage is way of signaling, "We may be liberal, but we're not that liberal." In addition, Sulzberger is not merely acquiring a new subscriber base; he has found an issue that has the potential to push existing liberal subscribers rightward.
The podcast is really good about naming names of specific people who are responsible for the anti-trans tilt. Aside from Sulzberger, the main responsible parties are executive editor Dean Baquet, managing editor Carolyn Ryan, and one-time book review editor Pamela Paul. Baquet and Ryan mainly play a role in disciplining younger, more progressive LGBTQ staff and their allies, while Paul served a more ideological function as book review editor and op-ed columnist. For example, the podcast mentions how Pamela Paul assigned known transphobe Jesse Singal to review a book on trans issues, and the flimsy rationale she gave for assigning Singal was that she couldn't find any other writer who wanted to write a review on that book.
If you want to learn why even some liberals are being pushed in a more anti-trans direction than they were five years ago, this podcast is essential listening.
posted by jonp72 at 10:58 AM on July 26, 2023 [50 favorites]
So even though it's known by us that the Times has a hate-on for trans folks, we can't choose to ignore it, because inevitably their reporting will get cited in Congress and in the Senate.
It's already happened. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey cited a "just asking questions" New York Times article on gender-affirming care for teenagers as justification for an emergency order banning healthcare for transgender people of all ages (cite).
posted by jonp72 at 11:03 AM on July 26, 2023 [17 favorites]
It's already happened. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey cited a "just asking questions" New York Times article on gender-affirming care for teenagers as justification for an emergency order banning healthcare for transgender people of all ages (cite).
posted by jonp72 at 11:03 AM on July 26, 2023 [17 favorites]
...before engaging in liberal bashing from the left. I like to think of myself as simultaneously left and liberal, and that creating coalitions and popular fronts are better than insisting on purity and self-marginalization.
On the other hand, whether you're more liberal or left, it's high time we started realizing that the right wing are better Gramscians than we are these days. Right-wingers aren't just satisfied with staying within their own little enclaves. They want to win the "war of position" by forcing their way into previous left and liberal spaces.
This, though, is WHY we bash liberals from the left. It has gotten to a point (demonstrably obvious since Newt Gingrich) that the right isn't interested in compromise, in honest exploration of facts, in anything but scorched-earth tactics. The left gets dinged for "ideological purism" as though that isn't exactly how the right has gained so much ground. It really is "you're for us or against us." You can't be neutral on a moving train.
So yes, we need to understand that this is a war, and stop hamstringing leftist efforts. When a "Hyde amendment for trans care" is proposed, liberals need to play hardball and say "fuck you, our counteroffer is Medicare for All."
Push the Overton window back. Stop making "caring for people" a fringe idea. Pass huge, landmark legislation that wins a generation of Democratic voters.
Liberals think Pelosi is the best thing since sliced bread. And I certainly think she's an asset. But she famously sneered at the Green New Deal. Why am I supposed to feel good about someone who can't get on board with environmentalism, jobs, and a social safety net?
posted by explosion at 11:11 AM on July 26, 2023 [45 favorites]
On the other hand, whether you're more liberal or left, it's high time we started realizing that the right wing are better Gramscians than we are these days. Right-wingers aren't just satisfied with staying within their own little enclaves. They want to win the "war of position" by forcing their way into previous left and liberal spaces.
This, though, is WHY we bash liberals from the left. It has gotten to a point (demonstrably obvious since Newt Gingrich) that the right isn't interested in compromise, in honest exploration of facts, in anything but scorched-earth tactics. The left gets dinged for "ideological purism" as though that isn't exactly how the right has gained so much ground. It really is "you're for us or against us." You can't be neutral on a moving train.
So yes, we need to understand that this is a war, and stop hamstringing leftist efforts. When a "Hyde amendment for trans care" is proposed, liberals need to play hardball and say "fuck you, our counteroffer is Medicare for All."
Push the Overton window back. Stop making "caring for people" a fringe idea. Pass huge, landmark legislation that wins a generation of Democratic voters.
Liberals think Pelosi is the best thing since sliced bread. And I certainly think she's an asset. But she famously sneered at the Green New Deal. Why am I supposed to feel good about someone who can't get on board with environmentalism, jobs, and a social safety net?
posted by explosion at 11:11 AM on July 26, 2023 [45 favorites]
When a "Hyde amendment for trans care" is proposed
which, mind you, is happening right now. in several of the must-pass bills republicans have added amendments which prohibit the use of federal funding on transgender healthcare.
i am not wholly convinced that the democrats, who say they stand with us/have our backs, will actually do so here
posted by i used to be someone else at 11:20 AM on July 26, 2023 [11 favorites]
which, mind you, is happening right now. in several of the must-pass bills republicans have added amendments which prohibit the use of federal funding on transgender healthcare.
i am not wholly convinced that the democrats, who say they stand with us/have our backs, will actually do so here
posted by i used to be someone else at 11:20 AM on July 26, 2023 [11 favorites]
"fuck you, our counteroffer is Medicare for All"
Love this. To truly take a page from their (unfortunately successful) book, let's make it
"Fuck you, our counteroffer is Medicare for All, Constitutionally-enshrined rights for all LBGTQIA+ people, and Basic Income of $85,000/year for All (with annual COLA)"
and then keep passionately escalating.
posted by riverlife at 11:23 AM on July 26, 2023 [9 favorites]
Love this. To truly take a page from their (unfortunately successful) book, let's make it
"Fuck you, our counteroffer is Medicare for All, Constitutionally-enshrined rights for all LBGTQIA+ people, and Basic Income of $85,000/year for All (with annual COLA)"
and then keep passionately escalating.
posted by riverlife at 11:23 AM on July 26, 2023 [9 favorites]
Yes, thank you. I know Metafilter users tend to be pretty tuned in to politics as a whole, but I overindexed on assuming cis folks know about this. I've seen a lot about it in my trans spaces today.
posted by explosion at 11:23 AM on July 26, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by explosion at 11:23 AM on July 26, 2023 [5 favorites]
they're still cited by conservatives as an unassailable bipartisan voice of reason.
If by "conservatives" you mean "Democrats," then I guess. Growing up in a socially "conservative," meaning "radical right-wing reactionary" household, the New York Times was definitely not cited as a bipartisan voice of reason. It was cited as a leftist propaganda vehicle.
Anyway, it seems to me that the very last thing anyone vaguely on the left wing should be doing today is asking what the right wing is going to say or do. They're going to demonize you no matter what. Do what's right and stop worrying about what the right wing is going to say about it.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:24 AM on July 26, 2023 [15 favorites]
If by "conservatives" you mean "Democrats," then I guess. Growing up in a socially "conservative," meaning "radical right-wing reactionary" household, the New York Times was definitely not cited as a bipartisan voice of reason. It was cited as a leftist propaganda vehicle.
Anyway, it seems to me that the very last thing anyone vaguely on the left wing should be doing today is asking what the right wing is going to say or do. They're going to demonize you no matter what. Do what's right and stop worrying about what the right wing is going to say about it.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:24 AM on July 26, 2023 [15 favorites]
FWIW, it looks like the UK Labour party has finally gone full transphobe. It's not really hard to see the Dems in the US do the same, especially since we know they'll make deals with the terrorists if they think they can get away with it, as Jeet Heer pointed out in April:
While Joe Biden has a better record on supporting trans rights than [Michael] Bloomberg or [Hillary] Clinton, there are worrying signs that his White House might also be susceptible to the false idea that transphobia needs to be appeased. On Thursday, The Washington Post reported: “The Biden administration on Thursday proposed new regulations that would allow schools to bar transgender athletes from participating in competitive high school and college sports, but disallow blanket bans on the athletes that have been approved across the country.” This regulation seems like a Clintonian attempt to triangulate between the Democratic base (which supports trans rights) and transphobic Republicans. It has the earmarks of White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, a centrist who loves this sort of pointless and counterproductive compromise.posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:30 AM on July 26, 2023 [12 favorites]
This whole strategy rests on the premise that transphobia is popular enough to be placated. But there’s little reason to think so. Further, attempted triangulation will only demoralize the majority of voters who support Democrats—on not just trans rights but also marriage equality and abortion rights. It risks creating the justified impression that Democrats are willing to back down from a fight about fundamental rights. Such compromises are both morally dubious and politically foolish.
If by "conservatives" you mean "Democrats," then I guess.
No, I literally mean conservatives. Republicans will swear up and down that the NYTimes is a leftist propaganda rag, sure, but when it serves their needs, they'll for sure cite it.
It becomes a "checkmate, Dems" because "our" newspaper is the source.
jonp72 cited an example of this in an above comment.
posted by explosion at 11:35 AM on July 26, 2023 [3 favorites]
No, I literally mean conservatives. Republicans will swear up and down that the NYTimes is a leftist propaganda rag, sure, but when it serves their needs, they'll for sure cite it.
It becomes a "checkmate, Dems" because "our" newspaper is the source.
jonp72 cited an example of this in an above comment.
posted by explosion at 11:35 AM on July 26, 2023 [3 favorites]
i can't wait for all the scoldings of trans folk if the democrats cave.
not only will it be our fault for being so controversial just for existing, but if we express any reservations in voting for them it's because we want the republicans to win
posted by i used to be someone else at 11:39 AM on July 26, 2023 [17 favorites]
not only will it be our fault for being so controversial just for existing, but if we express any reservations in voting for them it's because we want the republicans to win
posted by i used to be someone else at 11:39 AM on July 26, 2023 [17 favorites]
Worth noting that Ruy Teixeira, who has has become one of the go-to "liberals" when Democrats want an excuse not to defend marginalized people, has gone fully fash and signed on with the right-wing American Enterprise Institute.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:48 AM on July 26, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:48 AM on July 26, 2023 [3 favorites]
not only will it be our fault for being so controversial just for existing, but if we express any reservations in voting for them it's because we want the republicans to win
We shouldn't ever vote shame groups that basically get told in to vote Democratic in almost a shakedown manner by know it all politically engaged liberals but I have a bunch of supposedly center-left upper middle class cis white het friends who live in NH and if any of them forget to vote D up and down the ballot in 2024 I won't ever let them forget it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:16 PM on July 26, 2023 [3 favorites]
We shouldn't ever vote shame groups that basically get told in to vote Democratic in almost a shakedown manner by know it all politically engaged liberals but I have a bunch of supposedly center-left upper middle class cis white het friends who live in NH and if any of them forget to vote D up and down the ballot in 2024 I won't ever let them forget it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:16 PM on July 26, 2023 [3 favorites]
There will be a time - I still have hope! - when a sufficient number of quotings of MLK's "white moderates" comment, of the paradox of tolerance and of Sartre's anti-semitism, of pointing out that the nazis were not defeated in the marketplace of ideas, of noting that "sunshine is the best infectant" just gives bigots the platform, of many other such things, will make liberals realize that they are part of the problem. I still have hope!
posted by Pyrogenesis at 12:30 PM on July 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Pyrogenesis at 12:30 PM on July 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
About halfway through, a very clear issue is that there are unwritten rules that will be used to keep the lower ranks in line but which are very very malleable for anyone higher up. And while some backlash was initially successful, it suddenly wasn't (maybe too many positions have been captured).
One problem is that we lack a good look at the internal web at the NYT. Who is spreading the rot at a high level, who are their friends, and who have they hired/promoted. Not that any of this matters if a majority of the very highest positions have been captured by the enemy and the other sets of positions are acting/pretending as though this is still normal.
This Paul character at Book Editing seems like a key figure in the web of anti-trans work at the Times.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:31 PM on July 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
One problem is that we lack a good look at the internal web at the NYT. Who is spreading the rot at a high level, who are their friends, and who have they hired/promoted. Not that any of this matters if a majority of the very highest positions have been captured by the enemy and the other sets of positions are acting/pretending as though this is still normal.
This Paul character at Book Editing seems like a key figure in the web of anti-trans work at the Times.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:31 PM on July 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
Whoops, jonp72 actually lines up the critical players quite well above, nevermind what I wrote.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:38 PM on July 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 12:38 PM on July 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
Oh god, I heard Sulzberger being interviewed by David Remnick on The New Yorker Radio Hour, and he was asked directly about this anti-trans stance, and his response was mostly "we're reporting both sides, you can't deny there is a debate about these issues" and I just wanted to scream at him in Weary Old Gay Who Came Out Decades Ago Voice about "the debate" about being gay, and how being transgender isn't considered an illness in the DSM or the mental health community just like how being gay isn't considered that anymore either....
So I'm not sure what the "both sides" are he's trying to defend during that interview, but he's not speaking about anything other than culture issues if that's his case.
posted by hippybear at 1:00 PM on July 26, 2023 [21 favorites]
So I'm not sure what the "both sides" are he's trying to defend during that interview, but he's not speaking about anything other than culture issues if that's his case.
posted by hippybear at 1:00 PM on July 26, 2023 [21 favorites]
"Fuck you, our counteroffer is Medicare for All, Constitutionally-enshrined rights for all LBGTQIA+ people, and Basic Income of $85,000/year for All (with annual COLA)"
Or what?
posted by kingdead at 1:06 PM on July 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
Or what?
posted by kingdead at 1:06 PM on July 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
So yes, we need to understand that this is a war, and stop hamstringing leftist efforts.
I agree. Liberals in general need to be more cooperative and welcoming to the left. But it is a two-way street. Criticizing liberals from the left doesn't necessarily help liberals in defending their turf and resources from the right. If you only critique the liberals and avoid morally critiquing the Right (especially its ever-creeping fascist tendencies), many liberals are not going to get the memo that their spaces need to be defended against incursion by the Right. In other words, don't sneer at the wine moms. Organize them, raise their consciousness, and push them left.
posted by jonp72 at 1:26 PM on July 26, 2023 [4 favorites]
I agree. Liberals in general need to be more cooperative and welcoming to the left. But it is a two-way street. Criticizing liberals from the left doesn't necessarily help liberals in defending their turf and resources from the right. If you only critique the liberals and avoid morally critiquing the Right (especially its ever-creeping fascist tendencies), many liberals are not going to get the memo that their spaces need to be defended against incursion by the Right. In other words, don't sneer at the wine moms. Organize them, raise their consciousness, and push them left.
posted by jonp72 at 1:26 PM on July 26, 2023 [4 favorites]
There's a great episode of You're Wrong About where they dive into this very issue with Tuck Woodstock.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 1:26 PM on July 26, 2023 [23 favorites]
“What if you were writing a profile on someone named Janet and I was your editor, and I was like, ‘I’m sorry, for balance, find someone who wants to kill Janet’?”It's not like people haven't tried to correct them about it for years. The pattern of coverage that puts trans lives in danger is well-documented by now. There's no "seemingly" about it.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 1:26 PM on July 26, 2023 [23 favorites]
Liberals think Pelosi is the best thing since sliced bread. And I certainly think she's an asset. But she famously sneered at the Green New Deal. Why am I supposed to feel good about someone who can't get on board with environmentalism, jobs, and a social safety net?
House majority leaders aren't and can't be dictators. Their job is to read the room -- specifically, their caucus -- and figure out how much they can plausibly get passed, given the interests and positions of their various members and factions.
Pelosi was never in a position to magically deliver a lefty wish list. What she could do, and did very well, was stay in very close touch with her membership, count votes very carefully, and organize support for the most progressive policies achievable in any given situation.
This is why many people ("liberals", if you will) admired her -- because she understood and mastered the political process for progressive ends. A lot of leftists, I find, don't really understand the political process, and get mad at people who attempt to engage with it on a reality-based level, reflexively painting all of them as idiots, obstructionists, corporate sellouts, quislings, etc.
W/r/t the "Green New Deal", this term was strongly embraced by figures like Bernie Sanders and AOC, and consequently demonized by the right. Pelosi, and Biden, understood that passing something under that name was going to be difficult -- especially getting it past the Manchin barrier.
Instead, they passed other legislation, with names like "The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law" and "The Inflation Reduction Act", which Manchin was OK with voting for -- because they sounded moderate and didn't tie him to people like Sanders or AOC -- yet which achieved much of what was in proposals previously labeled as "The Green New Deal".
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:57 PM on July 26, 2023 [15 favorites]
House majority leaders aren't and can't be dictators. Their job is to read the room -- specifically, their caucus -- and figure out how much they can plausibly get passed, given the interests and positions of their various members and factions.
Pelosi was never in a position to magically deliver a lefty wish list. What she could do, and did very well, was stay in very close touch with her membership, count votes very carefully, and organize support for the most progressive policies achievable in any given situation.
This is why many people ("liberals", if you will) admired her -- because she understood and mastered the political process for progressive ends. A lot of leftists, I find, don't really understand the political process, and get mad at people who attempt to engage with it on a reality-based level, reflexively painting all of them as idiots, obstructionists, corporate sellouts, quislings, etc.
W/r/t the "Green New Deal", this term was strongly embraced by figures like Bernie Sanders and AOC, and consequently demonized by the right. Pelosi, and Biden, understood that passing something under that name was going to be difficult -- especially getting it past the Manchin barrier.
Instead, they passed other legislation, with names like "The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law" and "The Inflation Reduction Act", which Manchin was OK with voting for -- because they sounded moderate and didn't tie him to people like Sanders or AOC -- yet which achieved much of what was in proposals previously labeled as "The Green New Deal".
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:57 PM on July 26, 2023 [15 favorites]
k
manchin blocked the equality act
there are more who are "moderate" and are perfectly happy to trade away trans equality, especially because "papers of record" like the nytimes and other respected periodicals like the atlantic are happy to launder anti-trans talking points and are contributing to the idea that it's perfectly okay to debate the limits of how trans people can exist in society
and with anti-trans prohibitions now being added in must-pass bills, if the dems aren't going to hold the line, because there's this atmosphere of "well, there's a debate to be had"
the republicans seem to be signalling they're willing to shut down the government over this; the democrats are saying they'll fight it, but that coalition hasn't been as... firm
why and how am i supposed to feel good about them?
posted by i used to be someone else at 3:06 PM on July 26, 2023 [8 favorites]
manchin blocked the equality act
there are more who are "moderate" and are perfectly happy to trade away trans equality, especially because "papers of record" like the nytimes and other respected periodicals like the atlantic are happy to launder anti-trans talking points and are contributing to the idea that it's perfectly okay to debate the limits of how trans people can exist in society
and with anti-trans prohibitions now being added in must-pass bills, if the dems aren't going to hold the line, because there's this atmosphere of "well, there's a debate to be had"
the republicans seem to be signalling they're willing to shut down the government over this; the democrats are saying they'll fight it, but that coalition hasn't been as... firm
why and how am i supposed to feel good about them?
posted by i used to be someone else at 3:06 PM on July 26, 2023 [8 favorites]
And here come the excuses for why the Democrats will be throwing trans people under the bus.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 3:07 PM on July 26, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 3:07 PM on July 26, 2023 [6 favorites]
This is why many people ("liberals", if you will) admired her -- because she understood and mastered the political process for progressive ends. A lot of leftists, I find, don't really understand the political process, and get mad at people who attempt to engage with it on a reality-based level, reflexively painting all of them as idiots, obstructionists, corporate sellouts, quislings, etc.
Yes, exactly this. There ARE liberals who don't really want to upset the status quo, just to improve it a little, and some of this is because they're twits and some of it is because they understand what leftists do not, which is that basically nobody who isn't already a leftist can stand leftists, and that the kind of small-c conservative voters that we need to swing our way in order to win elections outside of gerrymandered districts or hothouse environments like college towns—and especially to win the electoral college—are especially distrustful of leftists, who they view as spoiled children. Go out and convince THOSE people that trans rights are one of the top ten issues facing America, and I guarantee you the liberals will get behind it.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 3:11 PM on July 26, 2023
Yes, exactly this. There ARE liberals who don't really want to upset the status quo, just to improve it a little, and some of this is because they're twits and some of it is because they understand what leftists do not, which is that basically nobody who isn't already a leftist can stand leftists, and that the kind of small-c conservative voters that we need to swing our way in order to win elections outside of gerrymandered districts or hothouse environments like college towns—and especially to win the electoral college—are especially distrustful of leftists, who they view as spoiled children. Go out and convince THOSE people that trans rights are one of the top ten issues facing America, and I guarantee you the liberals will get behind it.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 3:11 PM on July 26, 2023
Meanwhile, the truly vile House version of the NDAA, which includes rampant transphobia amongst a lot of other bigotry, wouldn't have passed without the help of four Democrats.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 3:12 PM on July 26, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 3:12 PM on July 26, 2023 [4 favorites]
the kind of small-c conservative voters that we need to swing our way in order to win elections outside of gerrymandered districts or hothouse environments like college towns—and especially to win the electoral college—are especially distrustful of leftists, who they view as spoiled children. Go out and convince THOSE people that trans rights are one of the top ten issues facing America
Since you're pretty consistent about your tack in these threads, what's your answer here? I don't see any sort of moral argument holding, since I can't find any consistent moral stance to latch onto beyond "protect me & mine" (and "your kid may be trans" seems to be about as likely to prompt a "how dare they do so without my consent" sort of reaction as one of empathy).
So what's the trading value you're looking for here? It seems hard since any sort of "without trans rights X won't happen or Y would be harder" argument would run right into the "spoiled children" line. "Trans people hold up a significant portion of Internet security & IT infrastructure" type arguments would prompt a similar response to immigration: More precarious status is a good thing, because then you get a more comfortable life for cheaper.
Trans people aren't a threat to 'small-c conservative swing votes' you're so focused on. (Or anyone else for that matter) But if we're getting all the way down to "what benefit do they bring me?", then I'm not sure why they should care about *anybody's* rights. Why care? The GOP's promising a world where they don't have to care.
posted by CrystalDave at 3:37 PM on July 26, 2023 [12 favorites]
Since you're pretty consistent about your tack in these threads, what's your answer here? I don't see any sort of moral argument holding, since I can't find any consistent moral stance to latch onto beyond "protect me & mine" (and "your kid may be trans" seems to be about as likely to prompt a "how dare they do so without my consent" sort of reaction as one of empathy).
So what's the trading value you're looking for here? It seems hard since any sort of "without trans rights X won't happen or Y would be harder" argument would run right into the "spoiled children" line. "Trans people hold up a significant portion of Internet security & IT infrastructure" type arguments would prompt a similar response to immigration: More precarious status is a good thing, because then you get a more comfortable life for cheaper.
Trans people aren't a threat to 'small-c conservative swing votes' you're so focused on. (Or anyone else for that matter) But if we're getting all the way down to "what benefit do they bring me?", then I'm not sure why they should care about *anybody's* rights. Why care? The GOP's promising a world where they don't have to care.
posted by CrystalDave at 3:37 PM on July 26, 2023 [12 favorites]
ah, yes, convince people trans rights are a top ten issue, except:
- trans people don't get platformed at the same level
- the nytimes and other major mainstream publications speak of trans people often as the Other with problematic framing
- when trans people do get to talk, we're often seen as too strident, too extreme, too aggressive, too dramatic
- the only people really fired up about trans people are those who are trying to create a legislative regime to discriminate, using
- lies
- more lies
- statistics that are taken out of context
- reasonable sounding phrasing that delegitimizes trans people like:
- we should protect women's sports, right? it's common sense that men shouldn't be allowed to play in them, right?
- we want to protect women, right? it's common sense that men shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces, right?
- we want to protect children, right? they're too young to make permanent, life-altering decisions, right?
- then the nytimes, the atlantic, the guardian, etc., etc., all start reporting the controversy because, well, there are two sides, you know, and it legitimizes it in the minds of those liberals and small-c conservatives
- when you're explaining you're losing, and there's so much nuance and explanation that has to be done to help people understand who trans people even are
- and then you get conversations like:
- look, bob's cousin's sister's neighbor's college friend's old buddy is one of those transes and he goes by sandy now, sorry, i mean she, and she's nice enough and probably one of the good ones but what about the ones who are faking it to be creeps?
- why are you so angry, are you one of them transes? look, you're not going to convince anyone if you keep talking like that
- look, i got no problem with trans people but you being all aggro makes me not want to say anything about this because i don't want to be cancelled
- besides, this is just about like, a small group of crazies, right? i'm more worried about inflation
- so then it becomes easy to blame trans people for the whole situation. either we're too political or not political enough. either we're sabotaging the democrats, like cenk at tyt says, or we're just not making the case, as you say.
Here's the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats:
The Republicans almost never criticize their most extreme members. They'll let the Boeberts and MTGs push the Overton window and then propose a "compromise" that is still quite extreme.
The Democrats will openly scoff at the leftists, talk about how they might upset undecided and centrist voters, and let the Overton window get ratcheted.
We get comments like "Pelosi's not a dictator," but the Republicans sure seem to be willing to "move quickly and break things" when they're in power.
With regard to trans folks in particular, they don't need to like us, but they sure need to stop telling us to "wait our turn." Get out your fucking history books, point out that demonizing trans people is how Nazis came to power, and stop telling us that we're overreacting.
posted by explosion at 5:01 PM on July 26, 2023 [15 favorites]
The Republicans almost never criticize their most extreme members. They'll let the Boeberts and MTGs push the Overton window and then propose a "compromise" that is still quite extreme.
The Democrats will openly scoff at the leftists, talk about how they might upset undecided and centrist voters, and let the Overton window get ratcheted.
We get comments like "Pelosi's not a dictator," but the Republicans sure seem to be willing to "move quickly and break things" when they're in power.
With regard to trans folks in particular, they don't need to like us, but they sure need to stop telling us to "wait our turn." Get out your fucking history books, point out that demonizing trans people is how Nazis came to power, and stop telling us that we're overreacting.
posted by explosion at 5:01 PM on July 26, 2023 [15 favorites]
The episode of the podcast is excellent, devastating reporting about the actual bias and readership goal of the NYT publisher. Liberal, progressive, even middle-of-the-road, they aim for none of these.
posted by riverlife at 5:13 PM on July 26, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by riverlife at 5:13 PM on July 26, 2023 [5 favorites]
A lot of leftists, I find, don't really understand the political process, and get mad at people who attempt to engage with it on a reality-based level, reflexively painting all of them as idiots, obstructionists, corporate sellouts, quislings, etc.
I can't imagine you seriously think that leftists are disproportionately ignorant about how politics works, but if that's really what you meant, wtf dude. If anything, leftists are very well aware how politics works...against our interests.
For example, not meaning to relitigate covid in any way shape or form, but when the pandemic took off, it quickly became apparent that it was by far the elderly who were most at risk. Yet we shut down nearly the entire world economy for a year, to protect predominantly 70+ year olds in industrially developed nations. I'm not arguing that was the wrong decision. I'm just saying, we reached a rapid political consensus very quickly to do whatever it took to protect a small minority, over the objections of a very large and vocal conservative minority.
The world came together to get things done with unbelievable rapidity because lives were at risk. But guess what? In 2023 lives are at risk by denying the proper medical care to transgender people. People didn't want to compromise their lives in 2020. Why should we expect trans people to be ok with compromising their lives and well-being? And telling people to wait for the winds to change is a recipe for failure. We're still waiting for the ERA to get passed after literally 100 years. So in today's environment I respect any trans person doing whatever is necessary to fight for their rights. Frederick Douglass famously declared, "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow."
Go out and convince THOSE people that trans rights are one of the top ten issues facing America
Here's the thing. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure most trans people don't want trans rights to be one of the top ten issues facing America. It shouldn't be an issue at all. It's only an issue because bigots and fascists are using it effectively as a wedge. But in a sane world, someone else's medical care and gender identity is none of anyone else's concern.
posted by xigxag at 5:30 PM on July 26, 2023 [14 favorites]
I can't imagine you seriously think that leftists are disproportionately ignorant about how politics works, but if that's really what you meant, wtf dude. If anything, leftists are very well aware how politics works...against our interests.
For example, not meaning to relitigate covid in any way shape or form, but when the pandemic took off, it quickly became apparent that it was by far the elderly who were most at risk. Yet we shut down nearly the entire world economy for a year, to protect predominantly 70+ year olds in industrially developed nations. I'm not arguing that was the wrong decision. I'm just saying, we reached a rapid political consensus very quickly to do whatever it took to protect a small minority, over the objections of a very large and vocal conservative minority.
The world came together to get things done with unbelievable rapidity because lives were at risk. But guess what? In 2023 lives are at risk by denying the proper medical care to transgender people. People didn't want to compromise their lives in 2020. Why should we expect trans people to be ok with compromising their lives and well-being? And telling people to wait for the winds to change is a recipe for failure. We're still waiting for the ERA to get passed after literally 100 years. So in today's environment I respect any trans person doing whatever is necessary to fight for their rights. Frederick Douglass famously declared, "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow."
Go out and convince THOSE people that trans rights are one of the top ten issues facing America
Here's the thing. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure most trans people don't want trans rights to be one of the top ten issues facing America. It shouldn't be an issue at all. It's only an issue because bigots and fascists are using it effectively as a wedge. But in a sane world, someone else's medical care and gender identity is none of anyone else's concern.
posted by xigxag at 5:30 PM on July 26, 2023 [14 favorites]
We get comments like "Pelosi's not a dictator," but the Republicans sure seem to be willing to "move quickly and break things" when they're in power.
What I said was, "House majority leaders aren't and can't be dictators."
Have you noticed the travails of Kevin McCarthy recently? He literally can't get stuff done without figuring out how to either appease or bypass the Freedom Caucus. This is what I'm talking about. It is structurally impossible for a party leader in Congress to just snap their fingers and make absolutely anything they want happen.
There are a few things the party leaders can do unilaterally. But there are also many things they can't do. And if they push their members too far out of their comfort zones, they'll lose their positions.
It's not a question of the GOP being run by a handful of authoritarians, and the Dems being stupid because they don't also work on authoritarian principles. Don't get me wrong: The GOP are authoritarians, but it's not because McCarthy and McConnell dictate to their members. It's because the members, by and large, are authoritarians too, and they vote for authoritarian stuff.
The larger point I'm trying to get at is that Dem leaders are beholden to their constituencies, just like GOP leaders.
Dem members of Congress, in turn, are beholden to their voters. Slightly more Dem voters are moderates than progressives. If Dem representatives get too far out ahead of their voters, then the voters will replace them.
If you want to understand the behavior and stances and rhetoric of politicians, It is useful to understand what their constituencies actually want.
The Pew Political Typology is helpful in this regard. It's a breakdown of who exactly makes up each party's coalition.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 5:42 PM on July 26, 2023 [3 favorites]
What I said was, "House majority leaders aren't and can't be dictators."
Have you noticed the travails of Kevin McCarthy recently? He literally can't get stuff done without figuring out how to either appease or bypass the Freedom Caucus. This is what I'm talking about. It is structurally impossible for a party leader in Congress to just snap their fingers and make absolutely anything they want happen.
There are a few things the party leaders can do unilaterally. But there are also many things they can't do. And if they push their members too far out of their comfort zones, they'll lose their positions.
It's not a question of the GOP being run by a handful of authoritarians, and the Dems being stupid because they don't also work on authoritarian principles. Don't get me wrong: The GOP are authoritarians, but it's not because McCarthy and McConnell dictate to their members. It's because the members, by and large, are authoritarians too, and they vote for authoritarian stuff.
The larger point I'm trying to get at is that Dem leaders are beholden to their constituencies, just like GOP leaders.
Dem members of Congress, in turn, are beholden to their voters. Slightly more Dem voters are moderates than progressives. If Dem representatives get too far out ahead of their voters, then the voters will replace them.
If you want to understand the behavior and stances and rhetoric of politicians, It is useful to understand what their constituencies actually want.
The Pew Political Typology is helpful in this regard. It's a breakdown of who exactly makes up each party's coalition.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 5:42 PM on July 26, 2023 [3 favorites]
The condescension is amazing. ... If you want to be convinced that everyone who disagrees with you is a total dumbass, that's your prerogative, but it's really dumb.
I never said that everyone who disagrees with me is a total dumbass.
But it kinda seems like you just did.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:09 PM on July 26, 2023
I never said that everyone who disagrees with me is a total dumbass.
But it kinda seems like you just did.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:09 PM on July 26, 2023
I can't imagine you seriously think that leftists are disproportionately ignorant about how politics works, but if that's really what you meant, wtf dude. If anything, leftists are very well aware how politics works...against our interests.
I'm talking about, e.g., the leftists I keep encountering who insist that "the DNC" (whatever they imagine that entity to be) "rigged" (by means they can never specify) the 2016 and 2020 primaries against Bernie Sanders.
I'm talking about people who say with a straight face that lots of candidates dropping out around Super Tuesday and supporting the front runner is a conspiracy, rather than the absolute bog standard thing that happens in basically every contested presidential primary, for straightforward non-nefarious reasons.
I'm talking about people who don't understand the legislative and regulatory processes, and don't get that the president isn't and shouldn't be a dictator.
As far as "disproportionately", no, I didn't and wouldn't say that. Certainly, many Trumpers are even more ignorant about the political process. And plenty of not-particularly-ideological rando normies are too.
I really wish high school civics was still a required thing, everywhere.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:16 PM on July 26, 2023 [4 favorites]
I'm talking about, e.g., the leftists I keep encountering who insist that "the DNC" (whatever they imagine that entity to be) "rigged" (by means they can never specify) the 2016 and 2020 primaries against Bernie Sanders.
I'm talking about people who say with a straight face that lots of candidates dropping out around Super Tuesday and supporting the front runner is a conspiracy, rather than the absolute bog standard thing that happens in basically every contested presidential primary, for straightforward non-nefarious reasons.
I'm talking about people who don't understand the legislative and regulatory processes, and don't get that the president isn't and shouldn't be a dictator.
As far as "disproportionately", no, I didn't and wouldn't say that. Certainly, many Trumpers are even more ignorant about the political process. And plenty of not-particularly-ideological rando normies are too.
I really wish high school civics was still a required thing, everywhere.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:16 PM on July 26, 2023 [4 favorites]
If you only critique the liberals and avoid morally critiquing the Right (especially its ever-creeping fascist tendencies), many liberals are not going to get the memo that their spaces need to be defended against incursion by the Right.
Why waste energy "critiquing" people who have fully embraced sadistic genocidal nihilism? At least liberals claim to want a better world for everyone. Do we really need to give you a cookie that says "at least you're not a Nazi"?
posted by Reyturner at 8:13 PM on July 26, 2023 [5 favorites]
Why waste energy "critiquing" people who have fully embraced sadistic genocidal nihilism? At least liberals claim to want a better world for everyone. Do we really need to give you a cookie that says "at least you're not a Nazi"?
posted by Reyturner at 8:13 PM on July 26, 2023 [5 favorites]
Man, thank God that MetaFilter was able to come together as a community and avert the brief possibility of this discussion being about the way the New York Times reports on transgender issues.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 9:51 PM on July 26, 2023 [35 favorites]
posted by Parasite Unseen at 9:51 PM on July 26, 2023 [35 favorites]
i really appreciate how it became a rehash of the liberal vs leftist argument
further proof that cis people don't actually give a fucking shit about this sort of thing, which is why convincing them it's a "top ten issue" is like pissing into the wind inside of a wind tunnel
posted by i used to be someone else at 10:31 PM on July 26, 2023 [14 favorites]
further proof that cis people don't actually give a fucking shit about this sort of thing, which is why convincing them it's a "top ten issue" is like pissing into the wind inside of a wind tunnel
posted by i used to be someone else at 10:31 PM on July 26, 2023 [14 favorites]
yet which achieved much of what was in proposals previously labeled as "The Green New Deal".
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:57 PM on July 26
Sorry, but this is a falsehood. IRA is not a climate bill. IRA is not even Build Back Better, which was not the Green New Deal.
We will have to pass emergency climate legislation in the near future, because we didn't this last time
posted by eustatic at 4:28 AM on July 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:57 PM on July 26
Sorry, but this is a falsehood. IRA is not a climate bill. IRA is not even Build Back Better, which was not the Green New Deal.
We will have to pass emergency climate legislation in the near future, because we didn't this last time
posted by eustatic at 4:28 AM on July 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
Here's the problem with the patient liberal explanations of "how trans people should address trans bigotry in the New York Times." (Forgive me for using the word "liberal" with the implication that I think liberal people sometimes have flawed politics; I'm told it can be rude to suggest that somebody left-of-far-right is politically imperfect in some way.)
The word "assimilation" is used a lot in queer politics. It's fiercely debated in certain circles: some people think it's the desired goal, whereas other people see it as counterproductive to the real goal, which is far more radical in nature. Regardless, assimilation gets discussed a lot, particularly when it comes to discussions of gay and lesbian causes, since the L and the G of LGBT are the letters that've come the closest to being assimilated out of all of them.
Assimilation means fitting in. It means getting yourself perceived as "normal." Unthreatening. Harmless. Part of the status quo. Accepted to the point that even conservatives will ostensibly accept you, or that the Overton window will shift and conservatives will become less conservative.
It's taken unbelievably long for the most harmless possible exceptions to the heteronormative quo to get seen as normal. How long did it take for films and TV to show a man kissing another man on the cheek like it's a normal thing that couples do, without feeling the need to loudly shout that This Is A Gay Couple In Gay Love With One Another, Gayly? I feel like even ten years ago, it was somewhat rare that you'd get depictions of gay men without "gay-sounding" voices, or lesbians with long hair. The extraordinarily simple idea that different people are attracted to different people was so shocking, so jarring, that in my lifetime it was seen as completely understandable that gay teenagers would occasionally get brutally murdered for having the temerity to be gay.
At the heart of the conservative ideology is that there is a "right" way for people to be, and that everyone should inherently want to try to conform to that ideal as much as possible, and that people who fail to conform to that ideal are markedly lesser than other people. People who actively reject that ideal, meanwhile, are figuratively (and often literally) Satanic. They want nothing less than the downfall of society. It's no coincidence that the implications inevitably extend to pedophilia: the conservative mindset is that planting contrary ideology in a young person's mind is more-or-less the same thing as molesting them. Only I bet a lot of conservatives would tell you that, push comes to shove, the ideology part is worse.
The reason why leftists sometimes loop liberals and conservatives together is that a lot of self-identified liberals are in favor of the status quo, and are unwilling to accept how much that status quo reflects that central conservative ideology. Liberals are often in favor of assimilation, because they recognize that these Big Issues shouldn't actually be issues, and they think the solution is for everyone to quietly accept gay and trans people and move along. But they struggle with the idea that, at some point, accepting the basic tenets of queer people's existence means realizing that the central assumptions we make about How Society Works are inherently conservative, inherently pro-bigotry, and will have to be seriously reconsidered. It's a struggle for them because it means that society will have to significantly change, and the line that differentiates liberals from leftists, in my experience, is the belief that the society which works for cis or straight (or white or male or financially well-off) people might simply not be good enough for everybody else.
Where the New York Times and the Atlantic—you know, august liberal institutions with a double-underline beneath the "institution" part—feed into conservative ideologies is where they start Just Asking Questions. What they never acknowledge they do, but what they absolutely do, is throw all questions pertaining to balance and validity, all statistics and verification, out the window. To their minds, literally any criticism or fear is valid, because being trans (or defying the status quo in any way) is A Disturbing New Thing, and we need to ask every possible question about the New Thing, no matter how deranged or fanciful those questions are. They function like a hypochondriac binge-reading WebMD, or like someone with serious anxiety reading books about potential apocalypses. Literally any shadow at the corner of any person's eye strikes them as a potential valid concern. So they run with every flavor of transphobia, every possible kind of fear, and they do it in the most buttoned-up sneering power-flaunting authoritative manner possible: we are the New York Times, how dare you suggest we are anything other than rational, we define rationality, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
They say they want to reflect "both sides," and folks point out that that's patently nonsense, in that one side is sane and reasonable and just wants to not be killed while the other side is helmed by folks who not-so-quietly dream of genocide. But they don't actually reflect show both sides to begin with. Because no matter how many trans people speak up, no matter how many scientists or sociologists speak out, the liberal elite will patiently go, "I know you mean well, but it sounds like you're trying to silence and invalidate this cisgender woman who tweets constantly about how trans women disgust her." Sure, that cis woman pretends to "cite facts" or "describe a social phenomenon," but the New York Times, on some level, recognizes that that's bullshit. Facts are not the issue. Social phenomena aren't the issue. The issue is that simply being trans disrupts the status quo. The things they claim to be disturbed about are simply ways of avoiding saying their real problem out loud, because you're not supposed to say that there's a Correct way to be and that trans people violate that by existing.
Whether or not you think "assimilation" should be the goal for LGBT individuals, it's not controversial to say that assimilation is considerably trickier for trans people than it was for gay or lesbian or bi people. You're talking about hormone therapy, medical procedures, and a general expansion of our social understanding of what men and women can look like. People change names and pronouns, and sometimes correct you on their pronouns. And that's not even getting into non-binary individuals, or into neopronouns. It's a genuinely complex issue that only "simplifies" if and when you're willing to consider that everything about how we talk about gender, and at least some of how we talk about biological sex, is flat-out incorrect.
People who are privileged enough to be accepted by the status quo develop a weird sort of social narcissism. Every issue is "about" them, even when it's literally not about them. Hell, straight people took the AIDS crisis and turned it into how afraid they were that gay people might give straight people AIDS. (?!?) Even good liberals who love trans people and would accept any family member of theirs who turned out to be trans still struggle to understand the basic concept that handling trans issues humanely means listening to trans people, letting trans people figure out what's best for them, letting trans people sort out the complexities and contradictions inherent to the trans experience, and trying to work out how best to support the trans community through all of this, ideally through systemic change. Because that's preposterous! How could trans issues not be primarily about what good liberals think and feel? How could this not mostly be an opportunity for the New York Times and its readers to pontificate endlessly?
The endpoint of that social narcissism is that everything becomes a parlor-room conversation. It's all fodder for abstract, intellectual discussions of issues where points are assigned for cleverness and for citing new sources. You know, NPR discussion: the kind where the most interesting thing to say is "I listened a fascinating episode of This New Life about this," or "I just read a great book about this subject." The sort of discussion that, on some level, is bullshit, in the sense that nobody really cares or is invested in what's true or false, right or wrong. I mean, they personally would like to be right, and they'd love to learn and grow or whatever, but nobody's life is about to change because of that discussion, the stakes are literally nil, and you'll get in more trouble for visibly showing emotion or getting upset at the other participants than you will if you vocally espouse the belief that children "can't be trans" or that angry trans people are a bigger threat to society than TERFs or Nazis.
The liberal vision of the status quo isn't necessarily that men wear suits and women wear corsets and wives never defy their husbands (though it isn't necessarily not that). But the liberal status quo is that everyone "ought" to have the freedom to discuss material politics as if they were thought exercises. It's that we should all be removed from actual consequences: that genuinely suffering from material reality is vulgar and a little embarrassing, and that getting angry about things just because they might kill you is shocking and unreasonable.
You know the "radical center" or whatever they like to call themselves these days? The smug dipshits like Matt Yglesias, who've made a career out of being "charmingly" contrarian in Ivy League circles? The professional JAQ-offs like Jesse Singal, who adopt "trans issues" as a platform the way they might adopt an alley cat or a TERF? The Bari Weisses and Bret Stephensons, who get upset to the point of tears if someone dares disrespect them or their vaguely fascist ideologies? That's all a byproduct of the same liberal culture that the New York Times all-but-defines. They are the NYT's example of "serious" people, where by "serious people" they mean people who know how to sound smart and say "interesting" things, no matter how idiotic and unserious the things they say really are.
Pretending that this is a fluke, or that it's a bad-faith misread of what the NYT publishes, or that it's just some weird happenstance, categorically fails to understand how the New York Times operates as an institution, or what its "perceived audience" is, or what circles the people who create it run in. The New York Times is the milder face of the same status quo that conservatives revere. It will tepidly criticize Mitch McConnell, but it would also love him to pen an op ed. It knows the Iraq War was bad, but not in a way that kept it from reporting every lie that led to the Iraq War in the first place, because those lies were interesting and they were news. (And you're not a "serious person" if you think that reporting lies as if they might be true is maybe a bad thing, maybe.) It thinks that Trump represents a threat to democracy, but that's less because of Trump's politics than because Trump himself is a vulgar and non-serious person.
The New York Times will publish TERFs and it will report favorably on TERF speakers, because TERFs can pretend to be serious people and the New York Times loves that. The New York Times struggles to respect trans people, or to see the things they're saying as meaningful and valid, because trans people keep making the social faux pas of getting angry and emotional, and they keep suggesting wild and crazy things like "people will get hurt and even die," and also trans people just don't seem that assimilated. Maybe Laverne Cox, since she's an important cultural icon, and maybe Caitlin Jenner, because she's rich, and how about a couple of novelists, and let's definitely include cisgender people who like trans people—being a fan of trans people is very in right now, after all—but the New York Times fundamentally does not understand why you'd be opposed to its publishing transphobes and TERFs, and it hopes you understand that phrases like "transphobe" and "TERF" are actually pretty offensive, and if you push the issue you will get Dean Baquet smarmily explaining to you that you are not the only reader in the world, actually, and there are plenty of conservative and moderate readers too, and don't they deserve to feel seen too? It's not all just trans people out there, you're so self-absorbed, gosh. Here's a study that says that 3 out of every 2,000,000,000 transgender people sometimes wonder what life would have been like if they hadn't transitioned, and another article about how a mother in Ohio who beats her children occasionally feels scared when a trans person goes on TV and says she should be allowed to visit public libraries, you don't have to get mad about these articles, why can't you just sit and contemplate them, gosh, you people can be so unreasonable at times.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 4:34 AM on July 27, 2023 [39 favorites]
The word "assimilation" is used a lot in queer politics. It's fiercely debated in certain circles: some people think it's the desired goal, whereas other people see it as counterproductive to the real goal, which is far more radical in nature. Regardless, assimilation gets discussed a lot, particularly when it comes to discussions of gay and lesbian causes, since the L and the G of LGBT are the letters that've come the closest to being assimilated out of all of them.
Assimilation means fitting in. It means getting yourself perceived as "normal." Unthreatening. Harmless. Part of the status quo. Accepted to the point that even conservatives will ostensibly accept you, or that the Overton window will shift and conservatives will become less conservative.
It's taken unbelievably long for the most harmless possible exceptions to the heteronormative quo to get seen as normal. How long did it take for films and TV to show a man kissing another man on the cheek like it's a normal thing that couples do, without feeling the need to loudly shout that This Is A Gay Couple In Gay Love With One Another, Gayly? I feel like even ten years ago, it was somewhat rare that you'd get depictions of gay men without "gay-sounding" voices, or lesbians with long hair. The extraordinarily simple idea that different people are attracted to different people was so shocking, so jarring, that in my lifetime it was seen as completely understandable that gay teenagers would occasionally get brutally murdered for having the temerity to be gay.
At the heart of the conservative ideology is that there is a "right" way for people to be, and that everyone should inherently want to try to conform to that ideal as much as possible, and that people who fail to conform to that ideal are markedly lesser than other people. People who actively reject that ideal, meanwhile, are figuratively (and often literally) Satanic. They want nothing less than the downfall of society. It's no coincidence that the implications inevitably extend to pedophilia: the conservative mindset is that planting contrary ideology in a young person's mind is more-or-less the same thing as molesting them. Only I bet a lot of conservatives would tell you that, push comes to shove, the ideology part is worse.
The reason why leftists sometimes loop liberals and conservatives together is that a lot of self-identified liberals are in favor of the status quo, and are unwilling to accept how much that status quo reflects that central conservative ideology. Liberals are often in favor of assimilation, because they recognize that these Big Issues shouldn't actually be issues, and they think the solution is for everyone to quietly accept gay and trans people and move along. But they struggle with the idea that, at some point, accepting the basic tenets of queer people's existence means realizing that the central assumptions we make about How Society Works are inherently conservative, inherently pro-bigotry, and will have to be seriously reconsidered. It's a struggle for them because it means that society will have to significantly change, and the line that differentiates liberals from leftists, in my experience, is the belief that the society which works for cis or straight (or white or male or financially well-off) people might simply not be good enough for everybody else.
Where the New York Times and the Atlantic—you know, august liberal institutions with a double-underline beneath the "institution" part—feed into conservative ideologies is where they start Just Asking Questions. What they never acknowledge they do, but what they absolutely do, is throw all questions pertaining to balance and validity, all statistics and verification, out the window. To their minds, literally any criticism or fear is valid, because being trans (or defying the status quo in any way) is A Disturbing New Thing, and we need to ask every possible question about the New Thing, no matter how deranged or fanciful those questions are. They function like a hypochondriac binge-reading WebMD, or like someone with serious anxiety reading books about potential apocalypses. Literally any shadow at the corner of any person's eye strikes them as a potential valid concern. So they run with every flavor of transphobia, every possible kind of fear, and they do it in the most buttoned-up sneering power-flaunting authoritative manner possible: we are the New York Times, how dare you suggest we are anything other than rational, we define rationality, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
They say they want to reflect "both sides," and folks point out that that's patently nonsense, in that one side is sane and reasonable and just wants to not be killed while the other side is helmed by folks who not-so-quietly dream of genocide. But they don't actually reflect show both sides to begin with. Because no matter how many trans people speak up, no matter how many scientists or sociologists speak out, the liberal elite will patiently go, "I know you mean well, but it sounds like you're trying to silence and invalidate this cisgender woman who tweets constantly about how trans women disgust her." Sure, that cis woman pretends to "cite facts" or "describe a social phenomenon," but the New York Times, on some level, recognizes that that's bullshit. Facts are not the issue. Social phenomena aren't the issue. The issue is that simply being trans disrupts the status quo. The things they claim to be disturbed about are simply ways of avoiding saying their real problem out loud, because you're not supposed to say that there's a Correct way to be and that trans people violate that by existing.
Whether or not you think "assimilation" should be the goal for LGBT individuals, it's not controversial to say that assimilation is considerably trickier for trans people than it was for gay or lesbian or bi people. You're talking about hormone therapy, medical procedures, and a general expansion of our social understanding of what men and women can look like. People change names and pronouns, and sometimes correct you on their pronouns. And that's not even getting into non-binary individuals, or into neopronouns. It's a genuinely complex issue that only "simplifies" if and when you're willing to consider that everything about how we talk about gender, and at least some of how we talk about biological sex, is flat-out incorrect.
People who are privileged enough to be accepted by the status quo develop a weird sort of social narcissism. Every issue is "about" them, even when it's literally not about them. Hell, straight people took the AIDS crisis and turned it into how afraid they were that gay people might give straight people AIDS. (?!?) Even good liberals who love trans people and would accept any family member of theirs who turned out to be trans still struggle to understand the basic concept that handling trans issues humanely means listening to trans people, letting trans people figure out what's best for them, letting trans people sort out the complexities and contradictions inherent to the trans experience, and trying to work out how best to support the trans community through all of this, ideally through systemic change. Because that's preposterous! How could trans issues not be primarily about what good liberals think and feel? How could this not mostly be an opportunity for the New York Times and its readers to pontificate endlessly?
The endpoint of that social narcissism is that everything becomes a parlor-room conversation. It's all fodder for abstract, intellectual discussions of issues where points are assigned for cleverness and for citing new sources. You know, NPR discussion: the kind where the most interesting thing to say is "I listened a fascinating episode of This New Life about this," or "I just read a great book about this subject." The sort of discussion that, on some level, is bullshit, in the sense that nobody really cares or is invested in what's true or false, right or wrong. I mean, they personally would like to be right, and they'd love to learn and grow or whatever, but nobody's life is about to change because of that discussion, the stakes are literally nil, and you'll get in more trouble for visibly showing emotion or getting upset at the other participants than you will if you vocally espouse the belief that children "can't be trans" or that angry trans people are a bigger threat to society than TERFs or Nazis.
The liberal vision of the status quo isn't necessarily that men wear suits and women wear corsets and wives never defy their husbands (though it isn't necessarily not that). But the liberal status quo is that everyone "ought" to have the freedom to discuss material politics as if they were thought exercises. It's that we should all be removed from actual consequences: that genuinely suffering from material reality is vulgar and a little embarrassing, and that getting angry about things just because they might kill you is shocking and unreasonable.
You know the "radical center" or whatever they like to call themselves these days? The smug dipshits like Matt Yglesias, who've made a career out of being "charmingly" contrarian in Ivy League circles? The professional JAQ-offs like Jesse Singal, who adopt "trans issues" as a platform the way they might adopt an alley cat or a TERF? The Bari Weisses and Bret Stephensons, who get upset to the point of tears if someone dares disrespect them or their vaguely fascist ideologies? That's all a byproduct of the same liberal culture that the New York Times all-but-defines. They are the NYT's example of "serious" people, where by "serious people" they mean people who know how to sound smart and say "interesting" things, no matter how idiotic and unserious the things they say really are.
Pretending that this is a fluke, or that it's a bad-faith misread of what the NYT publishes, or that it's just some weird happenstance, categorically fails to understand how the New York Times operates as an institution, or what its "perceived audience" is, or what circles the people who create it run in. The New York Times is the milder face of the same status quo that conservatives revere. It will tepidly criticize Mitch McConnell, but it would also love him to pen an op ed. It knows the Iraq War was bad, but not in a way that kept it from reporting every lie that led to the Iraq War in the first place, because those lies were interesting and they were news. (And you're not a "serious person" if you think that reporting lies as if they might be true is maybe a bad thing, maybe.) It thinks that Trump represents a threat to democracy, but that's less because of Trump's politics than because Trump himself is a vulgar and non-serious person.
The New York Times will publish TERFs and it will report favorably on TERF speakers, because TERFs can pretend to be serious people and the New York Times loves that. The New York Times struggles to respect trans people, or to see the things they're saying as meaningful and valid, because trans people keep making the social faux pas of getting angry and emotional, and they keep suggesting wild and crazy things like "people will get hurt and even die," and also trans people just don't seem that assimilated. Maybe Laverne Cox, since she's an important cultural icon, and maybe Caitlin Jenner, because she's rich, and how about a couple of novelists, and let's definitely include cisgender people who like trans people—being a fan of trans people is very in right now, after all—but the New York Times fundamentally does not understand why you'd be opposed to its publishing transphobes and TERFs, and it hopes you understand that phrases like "transphobe" and "TERF" are actually pretty offensive, and if you push the issue you will get Dean Baquet smarmily explaining to you that you are not the only reader in the world, actually, and there are plenty of conservative and moderate readers too, and don't they deserve to feel seen too? It's not all just trans people out there, you're so self-absorbed, gosh. Here's a study that says that 3 out of every 2,000,000,000 transgender people sometimes wonder what life would have been like if they hadn't transitioned, and another article about how a mother in Ohio who beats her children occasionally feels scared when a trans person goes on TV and says she should be allowed to visit public libraries, you don't have to get mad about these articles, why can't you just sit and contemplate them, gosh, you people can be so unreasonable at times.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 4:34 AM on July 27, 2023 [39 favorites]
Go out and convince THOSE people that trans rights are one of the top ten issues facing America, and I guarantee you the liberals will get behind it.
Did you miss the entire thesis of the podcast? That it's just a handful of very connected, influential people at the New York Times who are pushing an anti-trans agenda which is prompting all sorts of anti-trans legislation to be passed? This kind of top-down political trendsetting happens all the time, and how dare you so cynically imply that trans-rights aren't a priority because the issue just isn't winning in the marketplace of ideas.
It's crap like what's going on at the Times that makes people on the left so cynical because it just proves how malleable mainstream liberal opinion is. If all it takes to change centrist opinion is for a single person at the Paper of Record to throw their weight around and get a bunch of articles published, then what does that say about the integrity and worth of centrist opinion?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:36 AM on July 27, 2023 [22 favorites]
Did you miss the entire thesis of the podcast? That it's just a handful of very connected, influential people at the New York Times who are pushing an anti-trans agenda which is prompting all sorts of anti-trans legislation to be passed? This kind of top-down political trendsetting happens all the time, and how dare you so cynically imply that trans-rights aren't a priority because the issue just isn't winning in the marketplace of ideas.
It's crap like what's going on at the Times that makes people on the left so cynical because it just proves how malleable mainstream liberal opinion is. If all it takes to change centrist opinion is for a single person at the Paper of Record to throw their weight around and get a bunch of articles published, then what does that say about the integrity and worth of centrist opinion?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:36 AM on July 27, 2023 [22 favorites]
blaming it on popular opinion when it's really part of a propaganda campaign is really shitty
not to mention the garbage circular logic of "we're the paper of record, we define what popular opinion is / well of COURSE this is the popular opinion, it was printed in the paper of record!"
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 8:05 AM on July 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
not to mention the garbage circular logic of "we're the paper of record, we define what popular opinion is / well of COURSE this is the popular opinion, it was printed in the paper of record!"
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 8:05 AM on July 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
Hell, straight people took the AIDS crisis and turned it into how afraid they were that gay people might give straight people AIDS. (?!?)
you know, it's interesting that Tom brought up this point, at this period in time, on this topic, localized in this thread.
I'd like to point everyone to this queer/trans creator's video exploring the hate for bi men.
so back when the AIDS crisis was the big panic generator against queer men in general, one of the ways the "contagion" was discussed was how it could affect the innocent, cishet population, and specifically, how it could harm the innocence of straight (white) women who didn't deserve the "gay plague".
the NYTimes (among other staunchly liberal, institutionalist publications) pushed forward the theory, unsupported by data, about how bi men were the bridge by which the "gay-related immune deficiency" would jump from the gay men (who, in the mainstream mind somehow deserved it due to their "hedonistic" and "abnormal" "lifestyle choice") to unfortunate, unaware straight women.
to this day, it's rare for men to come out as bi, and there's still an idea that bi men are untrustworthy and incapable of fidelity.
just to underscore the point of how the NYTimes has historically been very anti-Queer, and often had a hand in stoking those moral panics. this is before even getting to how they reported on gays and lesbians under the older mastheads.
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:27 AM on July 27, 2023 [14 favorites]
you know, it's interesting that Tom brought up this point, at this period in time, on this topic, localized in this thread.
I'd like to point everyone to this queer/trans creator's video exploring the hate for bi men.
so back when the AIDS crisis was the big panic generator against queer men in general, one of the ways the "contagion" was discussed was how it could affect the innocent, cishet population, and specifically, how it could harm the innocence of straight (white) women who didn't deserve the "gay plague".
the NYTimes (among other staunchly liberal, institutionalist publications) pushed forward the theory, unsupported by data, about how bi men were the bridge by which the "gay-related immune deficiency" would jump from the gay men (who, in the mainstream mind somehow deserved it due to their "hedonistic" and "abnormal" "lifestyle choice") to unfortunate, unaware straight women.
to this day, it's rare for men to come out as bi, and there's still an idea that bi men are untrustworthy and incapable of fidelity.
just to underscore the point of how the NYTimes has historically been very anti-Queer, and often had a hand in stoking those moral panics. this is before even getting to how they reported on gays and lesbians under the older mastheads.
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:27 AM on July 27, 2023 [14 favorites]
I just want to live a quiet life not made worse, smaller, and unhappier by the people who hate me. Where the government doesn't limit my freedoms and choices, and I'm not worried about being put on a list to be jailed and or shot.
People with cynical or even evil motivation go around deliberately lighting fires so they can talk about how everyone is talking about how there's suddenly so much fire. And in this case, it's how monstrous and abnormal me and mine are, how much of a threat we are. Sigh.
posted by Jacen at 11:08 AM on July 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
People with cynical or even evil motivation go around deliberately lighting fires so they can talk about how everyone is talking about how there's suddenly so much fire. And in this case, it's how monstrous and abnormal me and mine are, how much of a threat we are. Sigh.
posted by Jacen at 11:08 AM on July 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
The excellent Evan Urquhart wrote a good essay a month ago laying out why it is that the New York Times comes in for more criticism than other mainstream media. Excerpt:
posted by Kattullus at 1:03 PM on July 27, 2023 [13 favorites]
A superficial understanding of questions and criticisms surrounding the New York Times’ treatment of gender-affirming care for youth pervades Erik Wemple’s defense of the Times’ coverage on the Washington Post opinion page today. The columnnist displayed a deep trust in the authority of mainstream outlets, and an aversion to the possibility that trans journalists might have the expertise and knowledge to criticize such coverage capably.The whole essay is worth reading, and if you care about anti-trans bias in media, Urquhart’s website which focuses on that subject, Assigned Media, is absolutely worth following.
An early example of the shallowness in Wemple’s work comes when he suggests that the Times is being criticized because it is the Times, and not because its coverage has differed significantly from other major outlets. This is, simply, not true. Criticism from the trans community has focused on two mainstream outlets, the New York Times and the Atlantic, because a large number of questionable choices of both what to cover and how to cover it have been taken, together, as evidence of a larger editorial bias. Other outlets have done better, and criticism has reflected that.
To illuminate this point, Wemple brings up Reuters’ coverage of gender affirming care, claiming it had featured “many of the same concerns as in the controversial Times articles.” While Reuters’ stories are often mildly skewed towards skepticism of the trans side, its reporting is sound and it includes substantive responses to the questions and concerns it raises. In short, Reuters has never had the sorts of reporting issues the New York Times has demonstrated. Wemple links to pieces from Reuters that demonstrate this perfectly: For example, in Reuters’ reporting on the increase in gender dysphoria diagnoses, the story makes it clear, including in one of its graphics, that only a minority of children with that diagnosis are receiving medical interventions such as puberty blockers. By contrast, a New York Times piece on the increase in top surgery among gender dysphoric youth obscures how extremely rare top surgeries for minors are by comparing it to even rarer genital surgeries. This allows readers to form a false impression that top surgery is common, and is the sort of misleading, sloppy work that, when repeated in multiple stories, has led critics to raise concerns about a widespread editorial bias at the paper of record.
posted by Kattullus at 1:03 PM on July 27, 2023 [13 favorites]
« Older The more she let go, the more she bled... | My neck, my back… my wrists and fingers Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Fascists on the other hand just want obedience and if there's one thing liberals are excellent at it's being slavishly obedient to the rules of a system.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:13 AM on July 26, 2023 [18 favorites]