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. 

Transphobes really say that one detrans kid is worth more than 41 dead trans kids.

Like that’s what we are talking about here.

That’s what these “concerns” are over.

They want to protect the occasional cis kid inconvenience at the explicit cost of dozens of trans kids lives.

— Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) November 14, 2022

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.

If you’re a cis person reading that NYT puberty blockers story ask yourself how many tail-end risks exist with different forms of birth control and whether they justify criminalizing it like people are trying to do with puberty blockers

— Gillian Branstetter (@GBBranstetter) November 14, 2022

Fuck the NYT. That is one of the most embarrassing and poorly written pieces. How many “some says” do these editors allow?

— Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) November 14, 2022

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

NYT took a step back and was like “It’s transgender awareness week… let’s tap TERF reporters to put a hit piece on puberty blockers.”

fact checkers: “but lit reviews say it’s safe”

NYT: “Lets commission our own”

fact checkers: “will it be peer reviewed?”

NYT: “Fuck no”

— Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) November 14, 2022

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

The @NYTimes‘s crusade against trans people, especially kids, is nauseating. It’s clearly driven by resentment of anyone criticizing the authors and sources on social media and written without the least consideration for the public. Despicable. https://t.co/NZDpKgZqY1

— 💭 (@samthielman) November 14, 2022

The NYT enabling anti-trans politics isn’t really them trying to appeal to the right, I think, but trying to make “just asking questions” a mainstream position.

— Melissa Gira Grant (@melissagira) November 14, 2022

I’m tired.

Oh yay another NYT trash fire. Their agenda is crystal clear and quite obvious.

— Katelyn Burns (@transscribe) November 14, 2022