Is Joe Biden Chopping Kids Up With A Hatchet? NYT Once Again *Just Asking*!
This time their anti-trans expert is an actual advocate for pedophiles. They mention that right? RIGHT?
Yesterday the New York Times ran a piece under the headline: Biden Officials Pushed to Remove Age Limits for Trans Surgery, Documents Show. As with so many other terrible NYT pieces, this one combines a whopper of a headline — in this case an outright lie — with a mix of reporting ranging from technically true to … not that.
The main thrust of the article is that staff for Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Admiral Rachel Levine — a trans person, as noted with hilarity in whatever this thing is — was in communication with WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) during the development of WPATH 8, the most recent edition of its recommended approach to health care for trans persons, and during that communication apparently argued that specific minimum ages for specific procedures should not be part of the recommendations. What isn’t in the headline is that those minimum ages did not exist, they were merely being considered.
Perhaps language is just too hard for me, but I’ve never thought that one can “remove” something that does not exist.
This isn’t to say that the Times doesn’t get around, eventually, to saying that the discussion was about tinkering with a draft of the recommendations, not the final ones, but it also doesn’t do anything to make clear its own headline is false. Given the headline, a reader could be forgiven for thinking that rejecting proposed age mandates might still qualify as removal if they’d been included in past published versions. Of course version 7 does not have minimum ages for specific procedures: They would have been new to WPATH 8. However the NYT can’t quite be bothered to clarify this point that invalidates their entire headline.
The revelations of contact between Adm. Levine’s staff and WPATH 8 contributors come from a document prepared by Canadian professor of psychiatry James Cantor and submitted to a court in Alabama in support of his application for leave to testify as an expert. That case involves yet another state ban on gender-related health care. The plaintiffs, seeking to overturn the gender-related health care ban, are arguing that Cantor is not an expert in trans anything, and should not be so certified by the courts. Cantor is contesting that he’s an expert in how decisions regarding trans health care are too often more political than medical.
To which we say, “He’s not wrong!”
Cantor may be a professor, but he’s also a professional expert witness (mainly in the USA rather than back home) who specializes in testifying against the interests of trans people despite having no clinical or research expertise. What Cantor has studied are the brains and disordered thinking of convicted pedophiles. And while that might seem unrelated to yr average Wonkette, Cantor has a history of arguing queers should take up the cause of benighted pedophiles, to the point of saying:
Speaking as a gay men [sic], I believe we SHOULD include the P. To do otherwise is to betray the principles that give us our rights.
Before you vomit, the University of Toronto student newspaper, The Varsity, interviewed him about this,
“If whatever thought or behaviour causes no one harm, it should be accommodated. Under this (my) ethic, GLBT is all okay, kink is okay, and so on. Child molestation is out, as it risks such harm to others. A sex doll built to look like a child however, is okay, as no one is harmed (although some may feel quite queasy).”
Okay, now vomit.
Like his one-time colleague Jordan Peterson (a former U of T professor who moonlights making money by making the United States worse) he’s also one of those anti-woke wankers, defending the right of persons with pedophilic attractions speaking up on social media, since talking about fucking children isn’t the same as actually fucking children. But as notorious as this behavior has made him, he’s also been on a clear crusade against gender-related health care, because he believes that, unlike pedophiles sharing their fantasies and encouraging each other to use a Tenga Egg instead of a human child, expert clinicians treating gender dysphoria is causing harm. In a recent British Columbia case, he testified on behalf of a nurse accused of professional misconduct for her hateful comments towards trans people. Oddly, he has yet to show his research demonstrating that requiring trans people to get health care from nurses who berate them does no harm.
You might think that the NYT, as it was reporting its story based on a curated submission made as part of a motion drafted by an advocate for pedophiles and for trans people sucking it up and letting their health care providers hate them, might have mentioned that the ultimate source has a profoundly trans-hostile and conservative political agenda. Instead, he was portrayed neutrally, and the only reference to questions of his relevant expertise placed in the mouths of his courtroom opponents:
Plaintiffs are seeking to bar Dr. Cantor from giving testimony in the case, claiming that he lacks expertise and that his opinions are irrelevant.
The Times could have pointed out that it’s simply a fact that Cantor has done no research on trans care, nor has he ever provided trans care, and that his Musk-loving, Intellectual Dark Web activism provides almost as much reason to suspect politically motivated ratfucking as the fact that in the very lawsuit during which these documents came to light, Cantor is collaborating with the Alliance Defending Freedom. Yes, that ADF.
Yr Wonkette is not saying that Levine’s office didn’t argue that specific age requirements are unhelpful and unnecessary. But the mendacious headline begins a cascade of biased framing skeptical of providing health care to kids in need and hostile to the Biden administration, yet entirely credulous when it comes to hate-speech loving activists with political agendas.
The Times could have written a good article, one that articulates the argument for why age mandates are unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. They could have spelled out that no mandates were ever removed, despite their headline. They could have placed the assault on trans health care in the context of a political campaign by the Right to use attacks on freedom in its quest for power.
They could even have mentioned — just in passing, it’s okay — that every year thousands of cis people get hormonal or surgical intervention as children for “my boobs make me uncomfortable”-itis. Yet no one questioning health care for trans kids is questioning bigger tits or smaller tits or chest reconstruction for cis kids. Because when cis children say that their bodies make them uncomfortable and they want to change them, that’s a thoroughly understandable crisis. But when trans kids say the same, it’s a social contagion orchestrated by pedophile groomer Democrats to mutilate the vulnerable.
The Times might even wish to be especially careful given that they were deep in the shit just a year ago when their own journalists called them out for biased and slanted coverage of trans issues, particularly trans health care.
Instead, the NYT keeps doing what it always does: validating the idea that if Bert the truck driver still has squicky feelings about trans girls growing boobs, then by god what happens between a patient and her doctor is fit to print.
Say, that’s not the same bullshit that created a society in which Debbie in Cincinnati gets to vote on my abortion, is it?
PREVIOUSLY!
Your friendly, neighbourhood Crip Dyke also writes other perverted stuff!
I've told this story before, but I was accused of "mutilating myself" by a right-winger when I had a mastectomy to remove my cancerous breasts. Apparently I shouldn't have "removed parts of my womanhood", rather just allowed them to slowly kill me via uncontrolled cell growth. The fact that this person felt comfortable saying that to me in 2008 gives me chills to this day - the RWNJs fully believe that it's their right to police our bodies, our own health bedamned,
Just to say that I taught medical ethics alongside Rachel Levine at Penn State and she's a conscientious individual who is entirely trustworthy.