Recent NYT Op-Ed Dishes Transphobia Fashioned for a Liberal Palate
Written February 7, 2024 by Jess Romeo (he/they), PMHNP-BC, MSW
Pamela Paul’s newest opinion piece in the New York Times about trans kids is yet another of a series of similar articles that perpetuates myths, and under the guise of nuance and reason, fans the flames of an increasingly harmful discourse. Its argument is nothing new. Paul ultimately grounds her theses on anecdotes, fringe opinion, and her own pre-existing views. Paul has previously gone on record defending J.K Rowling’s statements against trans communities, seems to share similar sentiments, and (bizarrely) seems to take issue with the evolution of terminology referring to gender identity and sexuality.
But what’s most upsetting about pieces like these is this:
They leverage the fear and benign skepticism of a liberal audience—
—and therefore come across as nuanced and compelling, when in reality, they grossly lack context and cogency.
As a psychiatric provider who specializes in this work and is trans-identified myself, I want to highlight some of the piece’s more egregious maneuvers and demonstrate that what she presents as sober-minded logic is really just an attempt to leverage fear and anxiety towards a regressive agenda.
Problem 1: Oversimplifying or Omitting the Actual Care Standards
Paul’s piece hinges heavily on detransitioner narratives, whose stories and personal opinions are used to narrow the reader’s context on these issues, and pique our baser fears. These experiences are then the lens through which she frames an argument against the current standards of care for trans youth. A major problem with this, beyond being manipulative, is that each of those individuals describe receiving treatment that did not actually adhere to the standards of care. It is within our standards of care that providers complete thorough biopsychosocial assessments, including history of trauma and a thorough gender identity history, though her main protagonist describes this as being omitted from her treatment. Moreover, not once does Paul cite the actual standards of care, or accurately describe them. So please allow me: the WPATH standards of care are meticulously-developed recommendations by a committee of specialists, updated regularly to reflect new research and clinical findings. The most recent version was completed in 2022. So her narrative, and the unfortunate experiences shared by her sources, attack a fiction–not a fact.
Problem 2: Unbalanced Sources
Paul’s named sources for this piece include 2 detransitioners, and 6 clinicians whose views are considered fringe, and who strongly diverge from that of professional consensus. I suppose in an opinion piece, the standards are perhaps a bit looser, but Paul fails to even give the appearance of a balanced perspective. She doesn’t include a single compelling source who challenges her existing views, instead quoting broad and bland statements in support of gender-affirming care from GLAAD, the HRC, President Biden, and Director of HHS Dr. Rachel Levine. In contrast, her sources’ opinions appear colorful, multi-dimensional and provocative, which I would guess is no accident. Meanwhile, many of her linked sources are meant to give the impression that her opinions have evidence to support them, but the links she provides either directly undermine her point or connect to fringe opinions and non-credible sources. This piece by Assigned Media does well describing that phenomenon.
And while omitting evidence and the opinions of respected clinicians who could meaningfully comment on the professional standards reveals her bias, it is just downright harmful to omit the stories of trans individuals whose missed opportunity to access this care in their childhoods helped influence the current standards of care. She tells stories of regret in great detail, while failing to provide little more than a few half-hearted statements about the benefits of gender-affirming care. So while her rhetoric repeatedly calls for “reason” and “balance,” she fails to provide even a meager dose of either, and omits the narratives of the very individuals who could best help readers grasp the fuller picture.
Problem 3: Casting Consensus as Extremist and Fringe as Brave
Paul’s argument relies not only on the fallacies above, but on setting an overall tone wherein measured, responsible clinicians who follow current standards of care are cast as political extremists. Her fringe actors are cast as maverick heroes, and detransitioners as refugees, while she repeatedly characterizes evidence-based clinical approaches as “dictum,” “ideology,” and “extremism.” She skillfully strikes a nerve in readers who are perhaps skeptical and unsure how to interpret a changing gender landscape, and who aren’t seeing their questions and concerns answered to their satisfaction. Unfortunately for readers starved of nuance in this conversation, she feeds them more misinformation. I wrote a piece about this last fall that you can check out here.
But let me be clear: concepts like Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria have been denounced and disproven.
Conclusion
While that’s by no means a comprehensive dissection of the problems in this piece, it is an overview that hopefully gives pause.
But more importantly, I want to punctuate the problem inherent in continuing to lend credence to views like these, particularly in this climate.
As long as institutions like the New York Times continue to print the grossly uninformed views of the Pamela Pauls, Jesse Singals, Abigail Schriers, and other bad actors who irresponsibly distort this narrative, they act as the perfect Trojan horse for continued siege against a vulnerable group of people. Liberal and moderate readers in search of nuance in heated political discourse seek answers in these publications, and are instead handed transphobia, masquerading as intrepid journalism.
Jess Romeo (he/they) is a psychiatric nurse practitioner, clinical social worker, and trans-identified clinician in the DC metro area.
He specializes in psychiatric care of trans communities, and educates clinicians and professionals on providing evidence-based gender-affirming care.
