Go Woke, Go Broke
50:45 Share

When the U.S. women's soccer team was eliminated from the World Cup, fans were crushed, but some of the usual suspects were crowing. The team has shown more interest in being activists and fashion icons and celebrities than winning. On this week's On the Media from WNYC, we examine the emptiness of the go woke, go broke sloganeering.

Also on the show, five months after the two open letters to The Times criticizing the paper's coverage of trans issues, has anything changed? Over 200 New York Times contributors have published an open letter criticizing The Times' recent coverage of stories involving transgender, non-binary, gender, non-conforming people. What has all this coverage so far amounted?

We've endangered an entire vulnerable minority and played into the hands of a pretty aggressive political movement. Once we had published, we don't control how readers of any kind are going to use our stories. And I don't know that we should. It's all coming up after this.

On the Media is brought to you by ZBiotics. Tired of wasting a day on the couch because of a few drinks the night before? ZBiotics pre-alcohol probiotic is here to help. ZBiotics is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic, invented by scientists to feel like your normal self the morning after drinking.

ZBiotics breaks down the byproduct of alcohol, which is responsible for rough mornings after. Go to zbiotics.com slash OTM to get 15% off your first order when you use OTM at checkout. ZBiotics is backed with 100% money-back guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money no questions asked.

That's zbiotics.com slash OTM and use the code OTM at checkout for 15% off. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

What if comparing car insurance rates was as easy as putting on your favorite podcast? With Progressive, it is. Just visit the Progressive website to quote with all the coverages you want. You'll see Progressive's direct rate. Then their tool will provide options from other companies so you can compare. All you need to do is choose the rate and coverage you like. Quote today at Progressive.com to join the over 28 million drivers who trust Progressive.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Comparison rates not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy. ♪

I'm Maria Konnikova. And I'm Nate Silver. And our new podcast, Risky Business, is a show about making better decisions. We're both journalists whom we light as poker players, and that's the lens we're going to use to approach this entire show. We're going to be discussing everything from high-stakes poker to personal questions. Like whether I should call a plumber or fix my shower myself. And of course, we'll be talking about the election, too. Listen to Risky Business wherever you get your podcasts.

From WNYC in New York, this is On The Media. Brooke Gladstone is out this week. I'm Michael Loewinger. In the wee hours of Sunday morning, when most Americans were still asleep... Wow. Sweden wins. A devastating loss, knocking the U.S. women's national soccer team out of the World Cup. It was heartbreaking for us fans, considering the U.S. women's team had won the last two World Cups back-to-back.

But not everyone was mourning the loss. "Some posts called them entitled, ungrateful, woke pieces of trash." "I'm thrilled they lost. Good. I'm glad you went down. You don't support America, I don't support you.

The game is at five in the morning Eastern time. The only people are up at this time are diehard soccer fans, right? Alex Abad-Santos is a senior correspondent at Vox. In a piece he wrote this week, he tracked the early morning schadenfreude. Former President Donald Trump.

posted on Truth Social, he said, "...many of our players were openly hostile to America. No other country behaved in such manner or even close. Woke equals failure." Nice shot, Megan. The USA is going to hell.

Megan is in reference to Megan Rapinoe, who is one of the stars. She missed a penalty kick. The right-wing influencer, Benny Johnson, had a pretty funny post that you kind of pulled apart in your Vox piece. In giant caps, it was breaking. Woke U.S. women's soccer humiliation. After winning back-to-back World Cups, the heavily favored Team USA has been eliminated by Sweden in the 16th round. Team USA's downfall was delivered by anti-America, anti-woman activists.

Megan Rapinoe's embarrassing free kick. There is no 16th round at the Women's World Cup. There is no 16th round at any World Cup. He was referring to the round of 16, right? The number of teams left in the tournament. Completely off base. The free kick that he's referring to is actually a penalty kick.

It's just like littered with errors, but I think that wasn't really the point of it. It was mostly to get a reaction from someone reading it. Like, Megan Rapido sent us all to hell with her progressive values. And we heard a sort of similar kind of schadenfreude from Fox and Friends over the weekend as well. The team has shown more interest in being activists and fashion icons and celebrities than...

winning. That's a fact. And now they've reaped it. Someone who got like dragged over the coals a little bit was Alexi Lawless. Alexi Lawless is a Fox commentator. He used to be on the national team. He is a soccer expert. He had posted on X, which is formerly known as Twitter.

"The U.S. women's national team is polarizing. Politics, causes, stances, and behavior have made this team unlikable to a portion of America. The team has built its brand and derived its power from being the best and winning. If that goes away, they risk becoming irrelevant." And then his critics quickly pointed out, like, this man has never, ever been in any danger of winning a World Cup. Under his own terms, you could argue that, like, well, the men's national team is irrelevant since it's never won.

The general message is, these unlikable women hate America. It's good that they lost, even though they represent America.

Let's just talk a little bit about the actual game for a moment, which so easily gets lost in this. Right, right. Because of the time difference, as you mentioned, it was on at like 5 a.m. my time. I didn't watch it, but I saw the highlights and they look pretty solid in their game against Sweden. I mean, Alex Morgan had a few really close chances. There were a lot of great shots on net, but Sweden's goalie was just kind of a brick wall.

After extra time, it went to a penalty shootout after 120 minutes of play. It was gut-churning and heartbreaking, depending on who you're rooting for. For those who haven't seen it, can you describe what happened? Megan Rapinoe, Kelly O'Hara, and Sophia Smith missed their penalty kicks. Rapinoe, right foot to O'Hara. Missed the net. O'Hara...

If any of those players had actually, like, clinched it, we probably would have won. But if you ask soccer experts, like, what was happening, the U.S. has had a lot of troubles in recent years because they're basically in a transition phase of...

having old players and having new players and veterans and mixing. There was nothing going right for the U.S. at the beginning of this World Cup. Not to mention all of the injuries. Yeah, so many injuries, a roster that was depleted, a coach that people now are saying was in over his head and wasn't making the best decisions.

All of these are valid criticisms of the U.S. team, right? You could talk about that all day. Donald Trump was not interested in that. Benny Johnson was not interested in that. Alexi Lalas, whose job it is to be interested in explaining to us, like, why our offense looks so bad, was not interested in that.

This loss is just one flashpoint of many that the U.S. women's team has faced over the last few years, maybe most notably starting with the team's fight for equal pay that kicked off in 2016 against

Can you give us the kind of the short history of how this team found itself at the center of the culture wars? Back in 2016, they were saying we aren't being treated equally from pay to the hotels that they're staying at. They said, we're the best team in the world, but we're not getting like half the stuff that the guys are getting. They filed a complaint and they said, we want to be treated what we're worth.

This battle goes on for six years. In 2022, they settle, and then U.S. Soccer Federation says, we will make the pledge to bring equality and close the pay gap. At the same time, the U.S. women's soccer team has always been an ally when it comes to LGBTQ rights. Megan Rapinoe, again, she's out. She is not afraid to say...

Yes, I'm gay. I play sports. I'm good at it. We should be treated equally. We should treat everyone equally. Megan Rapinoe has attracted an outsized portion of disdain from the right-wing media. Why is everyone going after her all the time? Back in, like, 2019, the U.S. women win the World Cup again. And basically, when you win a giant sports event like that, you get an invite to the White House.

And before they even won it, Megan Rapinoe says, no, we're not going. It's my absolute honor to lead this team out on the field. There's no other place that I would rather be, even in the presidential race. That starts a whole like back and forth. They win in amazing fashion. They reject the White House visit. And it just is very contentious from that point on.

Earlier this year, the team puts on light blue and light pink wristbands, which is support for trans kids. And when they were playing in Florida, they put on those wristbands and they said, defend trans lives. In Florida, Ron DeSantis has unrolled a lot of anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ legislation.

You wrote, quote, the political criticism the U.S. women's national team is facing isn't unlike the rhetoric used in conservative boycotts, the kind that have exploded this year. What parallels do you see? Well, being a woman is hard is essentially the core message of Barbie. And when conservatives found this out, they were just like, oh, this isn't going to make any money. Don't go see this movie. Barbie has gone woke, so she has to go broke.

The go woke go broke thing is really quite dumb. I mean, especially when you scrutinize it for even a second. Barbie earned $1 billion at the box office. And then if you go back even further, remember when Dylan Mulvaney, who is a trans influencer, promoted Bud Light on her Instagram page and conservatives freaked out about that.

It's also like the M&Ms. They took the sexy boots off the M&M and then the right wing was like, why did you make the M&M not sexy? The M&M should be sexy. And you're just like... In America, M&Ms are hot. Is it really about the sexy M&M or is it about fanning the flames of something to be mad at and keeping a base energized? It seems to fit a pattern that we've seen from Starbucks.

to Target, to Colin Kaepernick, to LeBron James. I bet you in two weeks we'll have something else being called woke and broke. Alex, thank you very much. Thank you so much for having me. Alex Abad-Santos is a senior correspondent for Vox. Coming up, five months after two open letters criticized the New York Times coverage of trans issues, has anything changed? This is On The Media.

Thank you.

Drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average, and auto customers qualify for an average of seven discounts. Multitask right now. Quote today at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. National average 12-month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations.

I'm Maria Konnikova. And I'm Nate Silver. And our new podcast, Risky Business, is a show about making better decisions. We're both journalists whom we light as poker players, and that's the lens we're going to use to approach this entire show. We're going to be discussing everything from high-stakes poker to personal questions. Like whether I should call a plumber or fix my shower myself. And of course, we'll be talking about the election, too. Listen to Risky Business wherever you get your podcasts.

This is On The Media. I'm Michael Loewinger. ♪

Right-wing politicians and pundits have made it clear that publicly supporting trans rights will put a target on your back, whether you're a company or a national sports team. It's amazing how strongly people feel about that. You see, I'm talking about cutting taxes. People go like that. Talk about transgender. Everyone goes crazy. Who would have thought five years ago you didn't know what the hell it was? Straight from the horse's mouth, trans people are a bona fide scapegoat.

The GOP and its leading candidate aren't hiding it. But Trump's wrong about one thing. Five years ago, anti-trans sentiment was alive and well.

It just had trouble finding traction. In 2016, North Carolina was in the spotlight when it became the first state to pass a bill barring transgender people from using bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. The law sparked national outrage and was repealed a year later. Just two years ago, there were no laws banning gender-affirming care for minors at the state level. Now, over half of all states have either passed legislation or are currently considering it.

Anti-trans activists are getting louder and their message more extreme. There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism. Daily Wire host Michael Knowles speaking at CPAC in March. Transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely. The whole preposterous ideology at every level.

The animus is crystal clear, but how to cover the transgender discourse has been less clear for some in the press. In February, a pair of letters addressed to the New York Times masthead accused the paper of missing the mark.

Over 200 New York Times contributors have published an open letter criticizing the Times' recent coverage of stories involving transgender, non-binary, gender non-conforming people, in particular concerning medical issues. Writing, quote, we are disappointed to see the New York Times follow the lead of far-right hate groups in presenting gender diversity. The Times covers our lives as if there's some sort of vast conspiracy in which there's too many of us.

We've been working on a piece about this since March, and granted, it's only been about five months, but we wanted to see if the fallout from the letters had had any noticeable effect on the coverage of trans issues at the Times.

I spoke to Jules Gill Peterson, a historian at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Histories of the Transgender Child. She signed the contributor's letter, which points to how Times articles have been cited in recent anti-trans legislation.

The letters prominently criticized a piece Jules was interviewed for, a long-form story in the New York Times Magazine titled The Battle Over Gender Therapy, written by Emily Bazelon, a well-respected reporter who we've had as a guest on our show many times.

That article was looking at the revisions to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH, looking at a revision to its standards of care. These are sort of aspirational documents that lay out the kind of best practices around providing gender-affirming care to trans people.

And this set of revisions, you know, had become embroiled in a question of how children and adolescents, because it was going to introduce a new chapter on adolescence, would engage with and reflect the cultural visibility of trans youth, you know, since the prior addition of these standards, but also the perception that there has been some kind of massive increase in the number of trans children seeking such care.

That is a really complicated question. And there are a lot of political groups organized both inside and outside of the medical establishment that have been sort of pushing their own agendas. There are trans folks, you know, pushing their own political agendas. They're kind of caught in the middle of that are the youth themselves.

One of the common criticisms that I saw of Emily Bazelon's piece was some of the language she chose to use, including the term patient zero to refer to a trans child seeking gender-firming care. That's a phrase with a really fraught history that some perceived was vilifying transness as a disease to be feared.

One of the key concepts that has sort of trickled into a more respectable, ostensibly academic arena is a notion of social contagion. The idea that there are more, particularly more trans young people, because it's somehow like a contagious identity. And one of the origins of this notion is a 2018 paper by a social scientist named Lisa Lippman, who coined this very pseudoscientific term that has since sort of...

and loudly critiqued and sort of debunked over and over again of rapid onset gender dysphoria, the notion that when children or youth come out to their parents, they suddenly want to transition, you know, and maybe the obvious reason why is like, because they've been thinking about it for a long time and now have just told their parents,

So the notion of a patient zero creates this sort of disease model where being transgender is a negative thing that is spreading too fast through the population, and therefore it's appropriate to restrict it. But also patient zero just harkens back to, that was a term brought about early on in the AIDS epidemic.

that was really used to vilify gay men as if they were particularly responsible for and had some sort of moral responsibility for this virus and its spread, which was a complete distraction from the failure of government and public health to actually do anything to mitigate the spread or research it.

HIV early on in part because people didn't care or even welcome to the death of gay men, right? And so it's just, it's really alarming to use language like that. And for what purpose,

I wanted to find out why this phrase, patient zero, had made its way into Emily Bazelon's New York Times Magazine piece. When I reached out to the magazine in March, they gave me this guy. So I'm the editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine. Jake Silverstein. Ultimately, I'm responsible for assigning everything in the magazine. And this was a story that we conceived of and assigned to Emily in the fall of 2021. We understood that

An interesting moment in the field of transgender care was coming up, and that was the release of this new standards of care, which had last been published, I believe it was 2012. So almost a decade ago, that was one of the original motivations for the story was to try to understand what process was going into that and get ahead of the publication of those new standards of care.

As Emily began looking into it, we had access to this working group that was working on the chapter about adolescents. And we began to understand that there were some not only debates and discussions happening within that group, but that also there was really intense complexity to them doing their work.

in the context of a proliferation of really draconian legislation restricting trans rights in various states around the country. Scott Leibowitz, who was the leader of this working group for the Standards of Care 8, said that they were acutely aware that any unknowns that the working group acknowledged, any uncertainties in the research could be read as undermining the field's credibility and feed the right-wing effort to outlaw gender-related care.

That's right. I think you're quoting from Emily's story there. The politicization in certain state legislatures around the country of this issue has created a political debate around something that has ended up distorting a lot of the reception of articles like Emily's.

Her piece was named and criticized in the February 15th Contributors Open Letter to The Times. And we don't have time to address every flashpoint, but I do want to discuss some of the big ones. The Contributors Open Letter references the use of the phrase patient zero in your story. Can you talk about why you decided to include that term originally?

This term was introduced to Emily during her interview with the patient in question, a Dutch trans man who we refer to in the story as FG. Emily tracked him down and interviewed him at length. And he said to her, quote, I was patient zero. The term also appears in a book that is cited in Emily's story. It's a history of the Amsterdam clinic that uses the term patient zero to describe the same person.

And in both cases, the meaning was clear to Emily in these interviews and in reading this book. It described the first effort recipient of a treatment. That's what it meant. And I think it was pretty clear that that's what it meant from context. Like I say, it's not used in quotation marks. Yeah, it's not in quotation. He is quoted saying other things. And he's quoted saying that this treatment saved his life. And

Emily didn't realize that it was going to have another connotation for other people. In between the time we requested comment from you and Emily last week and today when we're talking, that phrase was removed from the article and it was replaced with the words, the first patient. Correct. Why did you decide to just now remove it? We've been talking about making that particular change. It's changing something to a story that we've published for reasons other than a factual correction that

is never something that we take lightly. It's not something that we do very often. As you can imagine, it's something that requires a lot of conversations and deliberations internally. So it took a little bit of time for that to work its way through the process. But, you know, we felt like it was the right thing to do. I wish that we had immediately understood how some readers might take that term. Jules Gil Peterson welcomed this change to the article, which is accompanied by an editor's note on the Times website.

Still, the social contagion myth continues to color much of the discourse around trans healthcare. It does seem like, at least from survey data, that there are more young people willing to at least identify in surveys as LGBT in general, like also lesbian, gay, and bisexual, but certainly trans and non-binaries.

As for the rapid rise in kids identifying as trans... John Oliver addressed this on his show last week tonight. As the writer Julia Serrano has pointed out, when you look at a chart of left-handedness among Americans over the 20th century, you see a massive spike when we stopped forcing kids to write with their right hand and then a plateau. That doesn't mean everyone became left-handed or that there was a rapid onset Southpaw dysphoria.

It means people were free to be who they f***ing were. This is a point that, you know, trans folks have made for a long time. That graph has been shared for years. And part of what's so helpful about it is it just de-dramatizes everything. Being left-handed is no longer considered much of a big deal. It's just like part of the variation of human life. But I think there's some real limitations to that notion. Because part of what it does, oddly enough...

It's sort of reinforced that the idea here is just we have to tolerate or accept that people exist, period. And this is actually a very popular form of trans inclusion. I think it's a sort of inclusion model that was developed around gay marriage, you know, in the 2010s. This sort of like, we accept that there are gay people and we're trying to get out of their way.

But trans people in particular, because transition has been gatekept by medicine, need access to healthcare. There are some material needs that go way beyond symbolic inclusion. And so I think part of the challenge has been the way that this is construed as a culture war implies that the job of progressives is to make room in their hearts or in their minds for the trans people involved.

in the country or in their community. And once they do that and remove any discriminatory laws, we're all good. And 2023 has been the year for discriminatory laws. The American Civil Liberties Union has counted 492 anti-LGBTQ plus bills in state legislatures, including laws that have passed or if they were passed,

There are other

other types of these bills, none of which have passed yet, but which I think Texas sort of led the way with at the end of last year in tabling, which essentially defined drag as being transgender in public. And what I mean by that is these are bills that will say drag is wearing clothing or makeup or moving the body or expressing the body in a way that, you know, produces a gendered effect different from the gender assigned at the time of birth. And

and saying that performing drag, which is to say being trans in public, is illegal. Now, that's more of a status offense. That's a much more sweeping invasion of individual liberty. And I would say it is astonishingly unconstitutional, except there were laws like this on the books from the 1860s all the way to the 1970s.

The implication being that if a young person witnessed a drag performer in the same way as if they witnessed a teacher in their school speaking openly about gender and sexuality, that this would lead to them wanting to become trans. And in some ways, it's reminiscent, too, of the panic around critical race theory.

Yeah, I mean, because both of the storylines have no actual basis in reality and don't even make sense by their own terms, one of the ways they survive as political rhetoric is they mutually reinforce one another. So one is the explanation of the other. And I would use maybe Florida as an example of this.

when the DeSantis administration moved to essentially gut AP African American studies, Governor DeSantis' explanation, because he couldn't really defend the deletion and censorship of actual history from this curriculum. So instead he said, well, we have to, you know, revise this curriculum because it contains queer theory. This course on Black history, what's one of the lessons about? Queer theory. Queer theory.

Now, who would say that an important part of black history is queer theory? That is somebody pushing an agenda on our kids.

Returning to last week tonight with John Oliver, he actually made the case that at least one of the operatives behind critical race theory is playing an important role in shaping the rights conversation around trans issues. One key architect of the CRT panic, Christopher Ruffo, recently pivoted to attacking trans rights, and he has openly discussed the strategy behind doing that.

What I'm looking at is to take that same style of reporting as I did with critical race theory, but now taking a look at gender ideology. What's happening right now is parents are feeling the, oof, this is kind of weird. I'm kind of uncomfortable with this, but I'm scared to speak out. And so what we have to do is we have to give them the kind of justification or validation or substantiation of their concerns.

to say, hey, this is the kind of thing they're teaching in schools. And then we have to give them the language where they can speak about it with confidence, they can speak about it directly, and they can speak about it with the requisite level of aggressiveness that it's going to take to say, hey, wait a minute, we have to stop this. Yeah, I mean, the architects of this moral panic and the people producing the marching orders and the narrative frameworks that are completely disconnected from reality are quite content to speak openly and plainly about their intentions, right?

Jules Gill Peterson believes the Times has ceded too much ground to right-wing attempts to distort the conversation. She and other Times contributors who signed the open letter point to an amicus brief filed by Arkansas' Attorney General, who quoted from three New York Times pieces, including Emily Bazelon's, in support of an Alabama bill that passed in April called the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act.

Last week, Alabama became the third state in the nation to pass a measure restricting gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary youth, but it's the first state to actually impose criminal penalties. Without an injunction, any Alabama doctor trying to prescribe puberty blockers or hormone therapy to a child under the age of 19 in Alabama would be guilty of

of a felony. I don't believe that there's anything in this story or any other news coverage that supports banning gender therapy. Jake Silverstein. I believe, and I can't say for sure because I obviously had nothing to do with this amicus brief, that these pieces were cited as

to show that there is a debate among providers about how to best perform gender care for minors. And that is what these stories document through reporting.

Once we had published, we don't control how readers of any kind are going to use our stories. And I don't know that we should. The frustration with the piece, as I understand it, is less with the facts that came out of the reporting, but with the framing. The choices whose voices were featured prominently, what positions were featured prominently. Like, for instance, the article quotes extensively from parents involved in a group called Genspect.

an organization that opposes gender-affirming care for young people. Kit O'Connell, a journalist and editor at the Texas Observer, felt that the article presents them only as like a concerned group of parents rather than activists trying to skew the conversation.

We've heard this criticism about not identifying Genspect. Some of the people who've criticized Emily's story have wanted us to refer to Genspect as a hate group. You know, we can't say that without evidence, right? We can characterize groups up to a point unless we're going to, like, dedicate...

reporting time to investigating, you know, a particular group, we can't characterize it a certain way without evidence. I want to ask another question about the sourcing. The trans writer Masha Gessen, who writes about Russia and LGBTQ issues for The New Yorker, said they really liked the piece. But they told David Remnick in an episode of The New Yorker Radio Hour that they were frustrated by Emily Bazelon's decision to quote conservative writer Andrew Sullivan. In Emily Bazelon's excellent essay,

in the New York Times Magazine last summer about the battle over transgender treatment, there's a quote from Andrew Sullivan, the conservative gay journalist, who says, well, maybe, you know, these people would have been gay if they hadn't, implying they're really gay, right? And they're not really transgender. Right.

And that really clearly veers into the territory of saying, you know, these people don't exist. They're not who they say they are. It's certainly not the position of the journalist in question here, of Emily. Part of what Emily is doing in the story is she's trying to gather in a sense of what that conversation and what that commentary is with the context in which these folks are doing their work. You know, that process of doing that, of gathering in this commentary, doesn't mean that Emily endorses every single thing that she's citing. She's trying to

give readers a sense of the atmosphere in which these gender affirming clinicians are doing their work. I want to ask you about another criticism that was articulated in the open letter to the Times.

In a portion of your article discussing why people might pause or stop gender-affirming care, there's a paragraph featuring the experience of a person named Grace Ladinsky-Smith, who is described in the piece as someone who, quote, has written about her regret overtaking testosterone and having her breasts removed in her early 20s. And she's been cited in a lot of partisan right-wing coverage. Well, I learned my lesson, but...

She's also interviewed in a fairly controversial 60 Minutes piece that came out before your magazine story. The writers of the open letter wrote, quote,

Grace Ladinsky Smith was identified as an individual person speaking about a personal choice to detransition rather than the president of GCAN, an activist organization that pushes junk science and partners with explicitly anti-trans hate groups. Sure. I mean, the question of how to identify people quoted in stories comes up a lot. And

Sometimes the decision is based on the footprint that they occupy in a story, how much the story is about them, how significant their part of the story is. And in this case, in a very long story in which this subject was a very small part, it seemed to us that we were giving the reader the information that was most relevant.

We don't hear from that many people in the story who were under 18 when they transitioned. And here was a person who was over 18 when they transitioned, seemingly, you know, tangential to the purview of the piece. And we didn't get a lot of context about where she was coming from. Yeah, I understand that. Emily Bazelon's piece states clearly that the regret rate for gender affirming care is very low.

I asked Jules Gill-Peterson what she thinks about anecdotes from people who detransition, which tend to be quite dramatic and have been used in conservative media as cautionary tales. This is a really interesting place where actually trans healthcare fares much better than other healthcare out there. We measure regret rates for things like surgeries and medications pretty regularly.

The regret rate, say for knee surgery, 5% to 10% are not unusual. For some procedures, it goes higher. I think for knee surgery, there was a study in 2018 that found the regret rate could be as high as 20%. And there was another small study for hip replacement. The number was like 5%. Yeah. And so for gender affirming care, the numbers tend to come in that the regret rate is like generally under 5%, often under 2%, sometimes under 1%.

But the medicalization of trans people reinforces the idea, one, that we only exist because of medicine, which is not true, and two, that there's something bizarre and exceptional and medical about being transgender. The narrative that we hear in the media is that detransitioners

are somehow ridiculed or stigmatized by trans people. And nothing could be further from the truth. Trans people all know detransitioners generally and have loved and cared for them. And it's just like, we understand how hard it is sometimes to maintain access to healthcare or to just feel like you're safe enough to live that way. So as for actual people who regret healthcare,

It's such a small amount of people and we don't ban healthcare for entire minority groups because we think that, you know, regret rates are too high.

I do want to ask you about something I heard the trans writer Masha Gessen talk about on the New Yorker Radio Hour. Puberty blockers are exactly what they sound like. They delay puberty. There are some studies that point to potential risks of long-term, right, more than a year or so, use of puberty blockers. That is absolutely illegitimate data.

topic of discussion. But of course, it's become very, very difficult to cover because there are bills in Texas, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas, and other states that lump all of these treatments in the same bucket. You know, puberty blockers is such a great example. It's become such an important flashpoint. But here's the thing.

almost no trans kids take them. I don't know why no one ever talks about this. Well, I do know why, because it kind of collapses the way this issue has been framed. To take puberty blockers, you can't really be very far along in puberty. So it's actually a very narrow window of age at which a child would even take puberty blockers, right?

And the thing is, puberty in Western countries like the United States, for whatever reason, we don't exactly know why, has been starting earlier and earlier. So actually now it's not uncommon for a nine-year-old or a 10-year-old to have already actually entered a certain stage of puberty that essentially closes that window for when you could pause puberty quite early. Just because most trans kids aren't showing up at gender clinics at age nine, almost no kids even qualify for puberty blockers.

I don't think we have exact numbers, but if we're talking about the drugs, it's, I mean, millions. This is Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire, who's known for his transphobic documentary, What Is a Woman?, discussing puberty blockers on the Joe Rogan experience last November. Millions of kids have been on hormone blockers, really? Uh...

I'm sure someone's going to fact check me on it. But my guess is that we're into the millions now at this point. It says over the last five years, there were at least 4,780 adolescents who started puberty blockers. The amount of kids being put on blockers, like we're talking about, you know, three or 4,000 a year in a country of 330 million people. Million sounds great.

Yeah. Media Matters will have fun with that clip. Given the way the story has been interpreted, the way it's been used in right-wing legislation, is there anything you wish you all would have done differently in your coverage or in the editing process? I mean, as you can see from the fact that we changed the term patient zero, I certainly wish we had changed that before we hit publish on the story. But other than that, I would say no. I'm really proud of this piece.

Emily's piece is a finalist for a national magazine award in the category of public interest this year. Jury of her peers has said it's one of the six most important pieces of public interest journalism published in any magazine last year, and I think that's correct. This kind of reporting is very difficult to do. It takes a kind of focus, it takes a kind of fortitude, and it also takes the commitment to the principles of journalism that not everybody has, and Emily does.

Coming up, New York Times front page coverage by the numbers. This is On The Media.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Whether you love true crime or comedy, celebrity interviews or news, you call the shots on what's in your podcast queue. And guess what? Now you can call them on your auto insurance too with the Name Your Price tool from Progressive. It works just the way it sounds. You tell Progressive how much you want to pay for car insurance and they'll show you coverage options that fit your budget. Get your quote today at Progressive.com to join the over 28 million drivers who trust Progressive.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law.

I'm Maria Konnikova. And I'm Nate Silver. And our new podcast, Risky Business, is a show about making better decisions. We're both journalists whom we light as poker players, and that's the lens we're going to use to approach this entire show. We're going to be discussing everything from high-stakes poker to personal questions. Like whether I should call a plumber or fix my shower myself. And of course, we'll be talking about the election, too. Listen to Risky Business wherever you get your podcasts.

This is On the Media. I'm Michael Loewinger. So far, we've focused our critique on The New York Times Magazine. But the open letters and the coverage they prompted across the media alleged a larger pattern on the newspaper side.

In a statement that we received from The Times, you can read it in full at onthemedia.org, a company spokesperson told us, quote, quote,

Since January 2020, we have published over 300 articles specifically on discrimination against transgender people and/or anti-transgender legislation.

We decided to go in and prove that this was not cherry picking by looking at the entirety of the Times front page coverage for the previous 12 months and compare it to its closest competitor, The Washington Post. Julie Holler is a senior analyst and managing editor at FAIR, a left-leaning media watchdog.

Their study is titled New York Times Anti-Trans Bias by the Numbers. I've been working at FAIR for a long time, and the Times and the Post are really fairly similar in terms of their news coverage. We just don't see dramatic differences between the two papers very often. But in this study, it was as if the two papers were reporting from two different countries. The Post put trans-centered reporting

articles on its front page a lot more than the Times did during the study period. They had 22 articles to the Times' nine. And the reason we looked at front page articles is because that's the most valuable real estate in a newspaper. So the Post put political or physical attacks on trans people on their front page 14 times during those 12 months. And that included several profiles of trans people,

that described what they were going through, humanizing them, helping readers who might not know any trans people what it feels like to be trans in America right now. You didn't get any of that in The Times. At The Times, there were two headlines that hinted at attacks on trans people's rights or restrictions on trans people's rights. One of them was about swimming internationally. And the other one about the right-wing coordinated movement to restrict women

For the study, you examined front page stories at The New York Times and Washington Post from April 2022 through March 2023. Can you tell me more about the differences you saw between The Times and The Post? At The Times, the narrative that was being focused on in these front page stories was primarily about trans people,

as threats to others, like trans people's rights threatening cisgender women's rights, parents of trans people as a threat to parents' rights. And then also the other narrative that was focused on at the Times was transitioning being risky or likely to be regretted or being pushed onto people.

"Are trans people getting too many rights too quickly? Are they threatening other people's rights? Maybe we need to put the brakes on this." Well, that's exactly the right-wing framing that's coming from Fox News, that's coming from Breitbart.

That's coming from that right-wing media ecosystem that is being projected by all of these right-wing politicians who are pushing this legislation. This is a criticism I know that publisher A.G. Sulzberger is familiar with, and I want you to respond to something he told David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, on The New Yorker Radio Hour in June. You know, it is our journalistic responsibility as an independent news organization to reflect...

for example, the very real debates happening in the medical community and even among trans people and parents of trans people about what type of medical intervention should happen for minors and when. And when the risk of not acting outweighs the risk of acting. And, you know, these are questions that the medical community is actively working through. There's an active debate there about

And, you know, our critics have effectively asked us to pretend that debate is not happening for fear that the information could be misused.

He's misrepresenting, I think, the medical consensus. All of the major medical, respected major medical organizations in this country have reached a consensus, and that is that gender-affirming care is important. It is life-saving. There are debates around the margins. Those are not the important story right now. The important story is that all of this kind of care is being taken away from people. No access whatsoever. The right is trying to

legislate gender-affirming care out of existence, not just for youth either. And the New York Times has decided that the more important question is

Are they going to have issues with bone density that they'll have to work to correct? I'm getting angry. Do you mind if I zoom in on that for a second? Yeah, yeah. Your anger and the anger of many critics of the New York Times have sort of fueled this position of like an old journalistic guard, which is that the emotions are too high right now and we can't ask the hard, real questions because of a political climate that is...

is there, but it's still our job as journalists to poke at the uncomfortable truths that might be there. That's how this has been framed. Salzberger also published a piece in CJR, and one of the things he talked about was objectivity. And this is this ongoing debate, can journalists be objective?

At FAIR, we come down very hard on the answer of, no, you don't want to pretend that there is objectivity. There are decisions that have to be made at every moment about what stories you're publishing. What stories are you putting on the front page? That's a subjective decision that editors make every day. What sources are helping you to tell that story? And you see a real difference in how the Times and the Post are reporting those stories.

And so you can see there is not an objective reality here that The Times is reflecting. And I think if I can rewind us, I've been covering transgender coverage for almost two decades now.

And 20 years ago, serious news outlets didn't talk about trans people and trans issues. Trans issues were relegated to the tabloids. This was the stuff of Jerry Springer. I've been dating this guy named Cesar, amazing, and I'm here to tell him a big secret of mine. Which is? I'm here to tell you that I was born a man. Aww.

Totally sensationalized, objectified. And there was a slow movement into the mainstream due to lots of hard work and activism and trans people coming out publicly and speaking out. And news outlets updated style guides, started respecting pronouns and names. But what you still saw 10, 15 years ago was what I would call an anthropological approach to covering trans people.

there was this real focus on questions of anatomy. There were so many questions asked of trans people on news programs, respectable news programs, where they would be asked, have you had a sex change? Are you going to have a sex change? If I were to look at you naked, would I see a man or a woman? And will you have the sex change operation or is this it? That's pretty personal information. I have not made that decision yet. I'm

Technically speaking. Questions like this that right now I think most people can see, can recognize as being completely inappropriate and invasive.

With, again, a lot of hard activism work by trans people and allies, more people in news outlets have become familiar with trans people. And they are listening to what trans people have to say about what is important that's going on for trans people's lives right now. And I feel like the New York Times has reverted back to this anthropological approach

of what's interesting and important to me about this story. Maybe the most illustrative example of this is the story on their front page about the parents' rights movement in schools. It's really looking at

The issue of whether schools should be required to disclose students' gender identity to parents. Like if a student comes out at school, does the school have to tell the parents that? This is forced outing, you know. These are questions of privacy. And the impact on trans kids can be really dramatic. School might be the only safe space for them if they're not telling their parents. The center of this story ought to be trans kids and what the impact is on them personally.

of these policies. And instead, at the New York Times, the story begins and ends with this woman who I think of as the quintessential Times reader,

She's this white woman in California. She identifies as a liberal. She claims to be wanting to be supportive of her trans child. But she found out that her child had come out at school, not through the school. The school did not tell her, and she felt villainized. So there were 16 sources in the story. Five of them were parents. Four of the parents had misgivings about these school privacy policies.

And there were only two trans or non-binary kids who were quoted in the story. The framing of the story shows that the Times is clearly more concerned about these self-identified liberal parents' feelings being protected than

than they are about these very vulnerable kids. Now that it's been some months since this public discussion, this reckoning around how the Times and other major outlets write about issues affecting trans people, have you seen any kind of change, any sign that the discussion has had an impact? Publicly, the Times continues to vociferously defend trans

its approach to covering trans issues in this way. At the same time, very shortly after the study period, after the letters were made public and this whole blow-up, The Times published three front-page stories on trans rights and politics that were really more of the framing of, "There is an attack on trans rights right now." So they were more of the forest rather than the trees.

They've had very little coverage since then. One of the kind of maxims, you know, of kind of an older school of journalism is you do what you think is best for the story and you don't let the principles in the story dictate how it's shaped or how it's framed. There are certainly some people who would be put off by the idea that activists lobbying the paper of record could successfully change the type of journalism that's done.

The Times keeps claiming that people are asking them to skew their reporting. And what we're saying is not, please skew your reporting. It's please stop skewing your reporting. The biases that they're not recognizing, activism can help.

shed light on. This is where when people say like, well, trans people just think we're not supposed to write journalism at all. Oh, on the contrary, there are so many compelling stories to be told. Historian Jules Gil Peterson. And of course, there are a lot of different crises going on in the United States right now and trans folks aren't the only one. But you know, in some ways, trans people's plight fits into a lot of bigger questions that confront the country at this moment. What is the role of

of healthcare, you know, this many years into a pandemic, right? What do trans people know about the experience of government intrusion into bodily autonomy that connects back to a story about reproductive justice right now? What do trans people know about policing and mass incarceration that connects back to a larger story about racial bias and policing or the mass incarceration system in the United States?

There is a lot of powerful, investigative, critical, and neutral reporting that could shine a light on particularly the impact that we're seeing in real time and its ramifications because the logics being tried out on trans people will not be restricted to them. They are already expanding to target gay and lesbian people.

They are already expanding to target things like contraception. You know, we can see a sort of larger arc of right-wing and authoritarian political movements that are really using trans people in that traditional sense as a scapegoat, almost like happened 100 years ago with the rise of fascism in Europe. So the kind of question is, what has all this coverage so far amounted to?

Not a lot. I mean, I don't think it's been especially clarifying to people. It's certainly not helped prevent anyone from regretting a transition. So what have we actually done? We've endangered an entire vulnerable minority and played into the hands of a pretty aggressive political movement. And if that gives people any pause, I think pivoting to, you know, really doing journalism that asks actual basic thoughtful questions would be a really welcome kind of shift.

Jules Gill Peterson is a professor at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Histories of the Transgender Child.

That's it for this week's show. On the Media is produced by Eloise Blondio, Molly Schwartz, Rebecca Clark-Callender, Candice Wong, and Suzanne Gabber. With help from Sean Merchant, our wonderful intern who we say goodbye to this week. Our technical director is Jennifer Munson. Our engineer was Andrew Nerviano. Katya Rogers is our executive producer. On the Media is a production of WNYC Studios. I'm Michael Loewinger.