I think a lot of the non-publicity about transgender ideology is because of the political objections of the young reporters of mainstream media. Their tendency to be progressive has had even the New York Times on edge in the last year, including causing an editor to resign because of a politically incorrect op ed.
On a related subject, I just had an interesting experience. Since I'm not sure what autogynephila stands for, I did a search on Google. When I typed it in, Google had no response! So I switched to Bing for the same search and asked why Google didn't response. Bing said, "Google’s reluctance to display the definition of autogynephilia might be due to the controversial nature of this term. Let me provide you with an explanation: Autogynephilia refers to a psychological condition ....etc." What's with Google? Does this have something to do with the search engine's recent embarrassment of accidentally producing "woke" artwork. This is the first time I've "Googled" something and gotten zero response.
I got thousands of responses in Google when searching "autogynephilia," with the top description: Autogynephilia (derived from Greek for "love of oneself as a woman") is a term coined by Blanchard for "a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female", intending for the term to refer to "the full gamut of erotically arousing cross-gender behaviors and fantasies". (From the Wikipedia article, "Blanchard's transsexualism typology"). Google doesn't appear to be hiding anything to me. You may have "safe search" mode selected, which blocks results containing sexual or graphic content.
I love this level of engagement! You're right: many have observed how reporters used to be tough, working class, go-where-the-story-leads men of a certain age; now they're recent graduates of elite private schools, with parents who can support them during unpaid internships and who raised them to assert their unearned righteous authority. Books will be written about how this has played out at the NYT. But I should have just linked to an article of mine that explains autogynephelia (AGP)! I'll fix it in the post. And yeah, Google has strong feelings about which questions can and can't be answered without offending the delicate sensitivities of men with AGP. I hope someone will write that book too.
I really appreciate you posting ML's thoughts. I read the files and watched some, but not all, of the video when it dropped. ML's breakdown and framing are really helpful.
Similar to what you express in your quote at the top of your piece here, my default is to expect nothing to come of the files. Am so used to our institutions ignoring reality. Was shocked to see WaPo allowed mention of the files at all, albeit in an opinion piece. And then I found myself feeling a little bit of hope.
I have not even read the WPATH files yet but the idea of it just felt underwhelming. Don't get me wrong. I am so glad more now have the ability to read and listen first hand to what WPATH says and hope a it edges things towards sanity. On the other hand, I have been walking amidst this tragedy for a long enough time, spoken to legislators, members of 3 letter agencies, cried out to universities, and on and on. I know there are many like me. Genevieve Gluck has done a scathing review of WPATH. You can listen to so many doctors spew this trans insanity in many institutions. I think people need to discover who these people really are that speak in the panel. For one, Jamison Green, who looks very much like a man, is not male. This person is the first FTM to head WPATH, worked on policy statements for SOC 7, etc. Is this an activist and how does such a person have such power to harm young people and families for decades? There is a bit about this person in this piece. The piece is dense but the details within are telling. https://margox.substack.com/p/synthetic-sex-insurance
Someday I will find time to look through the file and maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. In a world of lies that fester for decades though I remain a skeptic.
I’m losing hope that the MSM will cover this now, but I can see how smart lawyers can really make hay out of the WPATH files when the detrans lawsuits move through the courts.
The WPATH story was covered in the Telegraph (UK), but not in the Guardian (no surprise there) or the Independent. And not on the BBC. In the USA, no coverage in the New York Times.
Yes: I think that might be their biggest utility, and it's potentially huge. If I had Pritzker money, I'd endow a law firm just to counter the ACLU on trans lawfare. ACLU has become another Min. of Silly Walks, but without the charm. It has to be stopped.
I think a lot of the non-publicity about transgender ideology is because of the political objections of the young reporters of mainstream media. Their tendency to be progressive has had even the New York Times on edge in the last year, including causing an editor to resign because of a politically incorrect op ed.
On a related subject, I just had an interesting experience. Since I'm not sure what autogynephila stands for, I did a search on Google. When I typed it in, Google had no response! So I switched to Bing for the same search and asked why Google didn't response. Bing said, "Google’s reluctance to display the definition of autogynephilia might be due to the controversial nature of this term. Let me provide you with an explanation: Autogynephilia refers to a psychological condition ....etc." What's with Google? Does this have something to do with the search engine's recent embarrassment of accidentally producing "woke" artwork. This is the first time I've "Googled" something and gotten zero response.
I got thousands of responses in Google when searching "autogynephilia," with the top description: Autogynephilia (derived from Greek for "love of oneself as a woman") is a term coined by Blanchard for "a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female", intending for the term to refer to "the full gamut of erotically arousing cross-gender behaviors and fantasies". (From the Wikipedia article, "Blanchard's transsexualism typology"). Google doesn't appear to be hiding anything to me. You may have "safe search" mode selected, which blocks results containing sexual or graphic content.
No response on the thing that got the scandal rolling - AGP! Amazing! De-google.
Think I'll start using Bing rather than Google.
There is Brave, Duck Duck Go, Swiss Cows...
I love this level of engagement! You're right: many have observed how reporters used to be tough, working class, go-where-the-story-leads men of a certain age; now they're recent graduates of elite private schools, with parents who can support them during unpaid internships and who raised them to assert their unearned righteous authority. Books will be written about how this has played out at the NYT. But I should have just linked to an article of mine that explains autogynephelia (AGP)! I'll fix it in the post. And yeah, Google has strong feelings about which questions can and can't be answered without offending the delicate sensitivities of men with AGP. I hope someone will write that book too.
I really appreciate you posting ML's thoughts. I read the files and watched some, but not all, of the video when it dropped. ML's breakdown and framing are really helpful.
Similar to what you express in your quote at the top of your piece here, my default is to expect nothing to come of the files. Am so used to our institutions ignoring reality. Was shocked to see WaPo allowed mention of the files at all, albeit in an opinion piece. And then I found myself feeling a little bit of hope.
I have not even read the WPATH files yet but the idea of it just felt underwhelming. Don't get me wrong. I am so glad more now have the ability to read and listen first hand to what WPATH says and hope a it edges things towards sanity. On the other hand, I have been walking amidst this tragedy for a long enough time, spoken to legislators, members of 3 letter agencies, cried out to universities, and on and on. I know there are many like me. Genevieve Gluck has done a scathing review of WPATH. You can listen to so many doctors spew this trans insanity in many institutions. I think people need to discover who these people really are that speak in the panel. For one, Jamison Green, who looks very much like a man, is not male. This person is the first FTM to head WPATH, worked on policy statements for SOC 7, etc. Is this an activist and how does such a person have such power to harm young people and families for decades? There is a bit about this person in this piece. The piece is dense but the details within are telling. https://margox.substack.com/p/synthetic-sex-insurance
Someday I will find time to look through the file and maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. In a world of lies that fester for decades though I remain a skeptic.
I’m losing hope that the MSM will cover this now, but I can see how smart lawyers can really make hay out of the WPATH files when the detrans lawsuits move through the courts.
The WPATH story was covered in the Telegraph (UK), but not in the Guardian (no surprise there) or the Independent. And not on the BBC. In the USA, no coverage in the New York Times.
The Guardian has finally published an article on this - written by Hannah Barnes, no less. Still nothing in the New York Times.
Thanks for that interesting update! I’ll see if I can open the Guardian piece. If it’s paywalled, would you mind doing a copy-share?
Never mind— it’s not paywalled! Yay!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/09/disturbing-leaks-from-us-gender-group-wpath-ring-alarm-bells-in-nhs?CMP=share_btn_url
in case anyone else needs it.
Yes: I think that might be their biggest utility, and it's potentially huge. If I had Pritzker money, I'd endow a law firm just to counter the ACLU on trans lawfare. ACLU has become another Min. of Silly Walks, but without the charm. It has to be stopped.