New York, USA – June 7, 2014: Facade of the New York Times headquarters building in Midtown Manhattan. Photo credit: mizoula

The New York Times’ Statement in response to The Anti-Trans Hate Machine: a Plot Against Equality Season 2 Episode 5 Capturing The New York Times:

“We reject the claim that our coverage is biased. The role of an independent news organization is to report on issues of public importance and follow the facts where they lead. 

As part of that mission, we’ve reported fully and fairly on transgender issues ranging from challenges and prejudice faced by the community, to the fight for expanding rights and freedoms, and open debates about care. Our coverage has been rigorously reported and edited, respectful of the people we’re covering and sensitive to the moment. It is providing a vital service to the LGBTQ+ community and our readership. 

The New York Times has published hundreds of articles — with a collective word count well over 330,000 — specifically on discrimination against transgender people and/or anti-transgender legislation since January 2020.”

TransLash’s Unanswered Questions of The New York Times

#1

How does The New York Times respond to our reporting that found the paper is laundering the myth of social contagion and other anti-trans disinformation in its pages? If the paper claims not to have an anti-trans bias, why doesn’t it properly contextualize or qualify anti-trans pseudoscience nor the organizations like Genspect which propagate it?

#2

Is it true that specific people in Times leadership believe that transness is a social contagion and are more inclined to run stories that support the idea of social contagion and to do so without the application of the paper’s own journalistic standards?  

#3

How has The New York Times responded internally to the concerns raised by staff about anti-trans bias and the paper not meeting its own journalistic standards on this topic? 

#4

Our reporting found that staff who go through the existing internal channels to hold The New York Times to its own journalistic standards are not taken seriously. And those who continually push for journalistic integrity on this issue internally are met with negative professional consequences by management. Why is that?

#5

Can The Times provide insight into why Dean Baquet shared Harper’s email with the masthead?

#6

Can The Times provide any insight into why Emily Bazelon’s piece “The Battle Over Gender Therapy” received the Publisher’s Award? How does A.G. Sulzberger respond to our reporting that found the piece elevates disinformation and gives credibility to the organizations and sources spreading that disinformation without qualification nor context?

#7

How does The New York Times respond to reporting from us that the Chairman AG Sulzberger is trying to push the paper to the right in order to appeal to right-wing audiences?

#8

Is it true that members of The Times masthead read and shared anti-trans posts from Bari Weiss’ substack with other masthead members? 

#9

As we reported, the New York Times dedicated 10,000 words of front-page coverage to raising concerns about medical care for trans youth in 2022, yet zero front page stories were dedicated to the nationwide, persistent and coordinated attacks to take away gender affirming healthcare from trans youth in that year. Given what stories the New York Times is choosing to center and elevate, how can the New York Times deny anti-trans bias in its coverage?

#10

Why is The New York Times conflating the contributor letter raising journalistic concerns with the GLAAD letter, by explicitly ignoring the former? Do leaders at The New York Times not believe that there was a difference between them? And was the lack of silence on the contributor letter a tactic to avoid addressing their points? 

#11

Is the New York Times concerned that its reporting—specifically its lack of contextualization of organizations and people who are skeptical, questioning or hostile to gender-affirming care—has been used or cited by anti-trans activists and lawmakers intent on denying health care and other rights to transgender people? Specifically, Texas lawmakers citing Times reporting in court to bolster their argument against families of trans youth, or the Attorney General of Arkansas who cited biased New York Times articles in an amicus brief supporting an Alabama law that criminalizes doctors and parents who provide trans youth with healthcare. What actions is The New York Times considering to possibly address those concerns?

#12

One concern we heard from staff was that trans voices were often left out of key conversations. Our research has found that to be largely accurate. Of the 330,000 words that the New York Times dedicated to attacks on transgender people and our rights, do you have data on how often the voices of transgender people were included in those pieces?

#13

One common theme throughout our investigation was that staffers said masthead leadership—including Carolyn Ryan, Cliff Levy and Pamela Paul—refused to apply the paper’s rigorous editorial standards to unsubstantiated or disputed claims about transgender care, and/or routinely defended stories that misidentified anti-trans activists as experts who spoke on those matters. Can you clarify the standard as it exists now? Can the NYT provide other examples where the political motivations of activists were not disclosed in favor of generic titles of authority?

#14

Did anyone on the masthead, including Pamela Paul, ever raise the factual and ethical concerns to Jesse Signal that were brought up internally by Times Out and other staff members about his review of Helen Joyce’s book?

#15

Did Jesse Singal’s article ever go through the standard fact checking process and, if so, were there ever any issues raised by that fact check?

#16

In the statement you provided, the New York Times defends its reporting on trans issues, saying the paper has published hundreds of articles “specifically on discrimination against transgender people and/or anti-transgender legislation since January 2020.” TransLash’s extensive analysis of New York Times coverage of trans issues found disinformation and anti-trans pseudoscience to be regularly elevated in these articles without correction or context. How does the New York Times respond to these findings and does the New York Times have any standards or guidelines for correcting anti-trans bias in its pages?

Listen to the episode of The Anti-Trans Hate Machine where TransLash investigates The New York Times:

Access the full transcript for Capturing The New York Times here.

Did you find this resource helpful? Consider supporting TransLash today with a tax-deductible donation.

The post The New York Times Responds To TransLash Media appeared first on TransLash Media.

Learn about Abigail Shrier and her anti-trans book Irreversible Damage in Episode 4 of The Anti-Trans Hate Machine Animated Series, a companion to Season 2 of TransLash Media’s podcast series The Anti-Trans Hate Machine: A Plot Against Equality.

‘A Voice For Anti-Trans, Mass Media’ Transcript

“Today I’m going to explore how Abigail Shrier, someone with no real scientific or medical credentials, has become a go to source for spreading anti-trans disinformation, especially about trans kids across the media landscape.

Shrier started as a lawyer with an Ivy League education, but ended up with an opinion column at the Wall Street Journal.

There, she pushed the junk science concept of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

Using anti-trans fear, ultimately led to a publishing deal for her book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.

Her book argues that social influences make kids trans and that parents need to reclaim the home as a place where moms and dads model strict gender roles to stop social contagion.

By moving from channel to channel, the buzz around Shrier’s book got louder and louder and eventually became impossible to ignore.

She was a regular fixture of Tucker Carlson on Fox News, which before its cancellation, was the highest news program on any cable news channel, as well as Joe Rogan‘s podcast, which has an audience of over 11 million listeners making it the number one podcast on Spotify, and these are just a few.

The vast reach of these outlets, and her voice is why the appeal for parents to resist when kids say that they are trans has found its way to ever larger audiences.”

Share this story and learn more by visiting

www.translash.org/antitranshatemachine.

About This Series

The Anti-Trans Hate Machine Animated Series, part of our #AntiTransHateMachine campaign, explains in easy to access videos how anti-trans pseudoscience and disinformation has become widely accepted as fact. From conversion therapy, to rapid onset gender dysphoria, to “watchful waiting,” a vast network of Christian Nationalist organizations and bad-actors have used both rightwing and mainstream media to change the way an entire nation thinks about the validity of trans people.

Did you find this resource helpful? Consider supporting TransLash today with a tax-deductible donation.

The post A Voice For Anti-Trans, Mass Media’: Animated Short appeared first on TransLash Media.

This is Episode 2 of The Anti-Trans Hate Machine Animated Series, a companion to Season 2 of TransLash Media’s limited podcast series The Anti-Trans Hate Machine: A Plot Against Equality.

Transcript

“Right now there’s a movement in far-right and Christian Nationalist circles to convince the wider society that trans people aren’t real.

This ideological detransition movement argues that the trans community is essentially a group of confused cis people and that over time they will revert to their gender assigned at birth.

For proof, these extremists cite cases of people who they claim have detransitioned.

Now, for many reasons, trans people do decide to pause, restart or rework the process of becoming themselves.

But we’re not talking about that.

These harmful arguments about detransitioners enter popular culture through voices like comedian Bill Maher.

They also find amplification in statehouses across the country to justify anti-trans bills like the hundreds introduced so far this year.

But since trans people claim the opposite that we are real, how do we arrive here?

In 2015, after same-sex marriage was federally legalized, Christian Nationalist leaders shifted their focus to anti-trans attacks, knowing religious arguments wouldn’t hold.

Strategists reused the anti-gay playbook of previous decades, focusing on spreading fear, misinformation and stoking concerns about social contagion and how it causes harm to children.

First, organizations like the Heritage Foundation platform, secular, pseudoscientific and anti-trans groups like the American College of Pediatricians to establish an air of credibility.

However, the ACPDS is 100 times smaller than the American Academy of Pediatrics, a more mainstream medical organization that affirms trans kids.

Secondly, anti-trans powerhouse organizations like Heritage and the American College of Pediatricians formed an unholy alliance with anti-trans activists, often called trans exclusionary, radical feminists who have their own obscure organizations like WoLF.

Through teaming up with activists who consider themselves feminists and progressives, right-wing groups were able to spread anti-trans propaganda into even moderate and liberal communities.

Together, Christian nationalists and TERFS grow their ideology through discovering and elevating the stories of people that they can label detransitioners.

They search Internet chat rooms and social media to uncover their identity.

Then they befriend them and elevate such vulnerable people into various stages.

These so-called detransitioners are then recruited to become spokespeople and are told that speaking out affirms their cis identity and erases any gender-based confusion.

But this campaign to spread disinformation is dangerous.

They created a culture of fear and moral panic, putting trans lives at further risk, both in state legislatures and communities across the country.

By shedding light on this problem, we can stop the damage being done.

Share this story and find out more about this by listening to our podcast.”

About This Series

The Anti-Trans Hate Machine Animated Series, part of our #AntiTransHateMachine campaign, explains in easy to access videos how anti-trans pseudoscience and disinformation has become widely accepted as fact. From conversion therapy, to rapid onset gender dysphoria, to “watchful waiting,” a vast network of Christian Nationalist organizations and bad-actors have used both rightwing and mainstream media to change the way an entire nation thinks about the validity of trans people.

Did you find this resource helpful? Consider supporting TransLash today with a tax-deductible donation.

The post ‘Detransition Pseudo-Science and Misleading Examples’: Animated Short appeared first on TransLash Media.