Trans Awareness Bleak

Another NYT “Investigation” Makes Irresponsible, Inaccurate Claims About Puberty Blockers

Happy Trans Awareness Week! The New York Times would like to see us all dead.

But seriously folks: what do you make of the decision to publish yet another fear-mongering article about the long-term effects of puberty blockers on the first day of Trans Awareness Week?

Even after trans activists have been explaining—for years!—that there is no actual downside to taking blockers, magical “studies” keep showing up that contend that the opposite is true. “The most difficult question is whether puberty blockers do indeed provide valuable time for children and young people to consider their options,” Dr. Hilary Cass told the Times, “or whether they effectively ‘lock in’ children and young people to a treatment pathway.”

Spoiler alert: they don’t “lock in” anything. It’s even more illustrative of the paper’s true stance on trans humanity when you see that the authors have taken one quote from a prominently-featured doctor and made it the crux of the story.

“There’s going to be a price,” said Dr. Sundeep Khosla, who leads a bone research lab at the Mayo Clinic. “And the price is probably going to be some deficit in skeletal mass.”

You know what else messes with your skeletal mass and bone density? Alcohol, foods high in sugar, processed foods, and too much salt.

So why is the Times acting like puberty blockers are the fifth horseman of the f*cking apocalypse?

I’m just saying it doesn’t bode well. 

If the main takeaway of your (not-peer reviewed) article is that there’s “going to be a price” to taking blockers, you’re not reporting. You’re not being a journalist. You’re not just getting “the facts.” You’re advancing an agenda.

To make matters worse, the story’s reporters have TERF sympathies:

The framing of the story—which plays up unsubstantiated fears around a loss of bone density due to puberty blockers—is patently transphobic.

I’m tired.

Read More