Opposing the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD’s Demand for Censorship and Gender Identity Based Hiring Preferences at the New York Times
A Militant Queer Stands With the New York Times Against the Heckler's Veto
Last week, the Human Rights Campaign (“HRC”) and GLAAD began protesting the New York Times for their alleged transphobic media coverage and made a number of demands on the newspaper. While I normally am a strong supporter of the HRC and GLAAD, I must oppose this protest and stand with the New York Times.1 Protesting mainstream journalists, insisting a newspaper report on an issue only with an editorial slant you personally favor, and insisting upon hiring quotas based upon sexual orientation or gender identity is utterly backwards and wrong.
More importantly, I feel obligated to call out an illogical argument that is being used by the HRC and GLAAD used far too often on the left. That is the argument in favor of censorship because speech is considered so harmful that speakers of a disfavored view are personally responsible for the bad acts of others who they have no control over.
The HRC and GLAAD have demanded the following from the New York Times:
“Stop printing biased anti-trans stories, immediately.”2
“Listen to trans people: hold a meeting with trans community leaders within two months.”3
“Hire at least four trans writers and editors within three months.”4
For a number of reasons that have been discussed by reputable journalists, the complaints and demands miss the mark.5
To quickly address all three demands:
Changing Reporting Practices. The New York Times has reported truthful information on (1) gender clinics that work to medically transition minors and young adults, (2) public school administrators and teachers who believe their main role as educators is to transition students, (3) harmful side effects from off-label uses of certain medications for gender affirming care, and (4) alleged medical malpractice by doctors performing gender affirming care on patients. These issues are contested matters of general public interest. For example, a whistleblower recently came forward to report countless abuses and instances of medical malpractice at the Washington University of St. Louis gender clinic.6
The New York Times has not denied the existence of transgender individuals or called for the prohibition of transitioning. They have not used anti-transgender slurs or promoted negative stereotypes about transgender people.
What is their great crime then?
Some activists dislike the articles because they worry it contradicts their favored narrative. Moreover, in presenting a balanced view on these stories, the New York Times has interviewed medical professionals who have raised questions about treatments or are critical of gender affirming care practices.
The freedom of the press plays a vital role in maintaining our democratic society. As a general rule, we should not dictate to the press what they should or should not be printing or how they should be reporting on issues. We certainly should not dictate that a newspaper report in a manner only suitable to our personally preferred viewpoint. Or dictate that news organizations not report on stories we think could be negative for public opinion regarding our policy position.
This is information that is newsworthy and of important interest to the public, especially the transgender community. The fact that we might not like its implications by no means makes it transphobic.Listening to Transgender Community Leaders. Do HRC and GLAAD include prominent transgender commentators like Blaire White, Sara Higdon, and Buck Angel? Do they include transgender medical health professionals, Dr. Erica Anderson and Zander Keig?
Angel, Higdon, and White are completely opposed to the transition of minors and have advocated against it. Dr. Anderson, who has helped minors transition, believes far too many young people are being wrongly transitioned and have been harmed by the failure of clinicians to follow basic standards of care.
Dr. Anderson has championed exploratory therapy for anyone who wishes to transition.7 She has also explained, as someone who works with transgender minors, that not eveld is at risk of suicide or self-harm.8 Keig has advocated for improving medical standards of transgender care, which he argues are hurting the transgender community.
If these out and proud transgender people are not the right trans leaders to meet with the New York Times, that only reaffirms that this is a demand for biased reporting.Hiring Quota Demand. The demand of HRC and GLAAD for hiring quotas is a significant step backwards. Only in 2020 did the LGBTQIA community win a major victory when the United States Supreme Court held that the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.9
Discrimination against cisgender heterosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity is strictly illegal as is attempting to force a private company to engage in such discrimination.10 It’s an important principle because while overwhelmingly sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination is directed against LGBTQIA people, discrimination against cisgender heterosexuals is still equally wrong and even if directed towards cisgender heterosexuals, it ultimately hurts our community.11
Given the struggle to win protections for the LGBTQIA community, why on earth would anyone claiming to be an advocate wish to reverse that tremendous milestone by insisting on discriminatory hiring practices?12
But as these organizations have doubled down on their crusade against the New York Times, there is something even more fundamentally wrong that needs to be addressed.
That’s the claim that mere news coverage of factual issues surrounding transgender healthcare is transphobic because it incites transphobia motivated hate crimes, transphobic legislation by Republican legislators, and criminal threats against providers of gender affirming care. Throughout the press releases of the HRC and GLAAD, the New York Times is criticized for enabling transphobes as those people engaged in transphobic activity cited to New York Times articles for support for their position.
In other words, the New York Times should be silenced because other people, who the New York Times has no control over, might do bad things with the information.
My own Congressman favorably tweeted such a proposition from The Onion, which had an article mocking the New York Times with the headline, “It is Journalism’s Sacred Duty To Endanger The Lives Of As Many Trans People As Possible”.13
As progressives and liberals, we need to stop with this nonsense.
Individuals are responsible for their own actions, including their own bad acts. Not other people who they simply happen to agree with on any particular political point or journalists who report information. A person does not get to absolve themselves from responsibility for their actions because of what another person says. Nor do we get to blame other people for things they had nothing to do with.
The idea that speech itself is dangerous assumes a paternalistic attitude that assumes that individuals cannot think for themselves. It assumes that even exposure to ideas, opinions, and even factual reporting is dangerous because people will be influenced to commit bad acts.
Furthermore, the idea that somehow speech can be censored because it might be used by someone else to independently engage in wrongdoing is an anathema to the First Amendment.14 Speech cannot be criminalized simply because another acts in ways that the speaker never intended.15
The line of thinking advocated by the HRC and GLAAD is dangerous to the LGBTQIA community. It enables the silencing of dissenting voices. It can be used to silence minorities. And it can be used to marginalize others, especially the LGBTQIA community. We know because it’s been done before to us. GLAAD exists because of programming in film and television that had no LGBTQIA depictions due to worries over the sensitivities of others.
Censorship of people for the independent actions of others has real world consequences. It is the sort of thought process that justifies things like the Hollywood Blacklist, the censorship of controversial literature and film, and discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics that have no impact on one’s ability to perform in society.
One justification for banning interracial marriage was based upon what other people would think of a multi-racial child.16 The evils committed by the Soviet Union and communist China were used to justify discriminatory treatment against those in Hollywood who had dared to even consider communism or express sympathy towards those who were communist.17
Even now, it’s not uncommon for extremist TERFs and right wingers to embrace discrimination against transgender teachers because they fear their mere presence in the classroom could harm children.
Journalists who do their jobs by reporting truthful information that is in the general public’s interest are not advancing bigotry. They are carrying out a vital function of the free press, a cornerstone of our democratic society. And we have to accept that journalism will report facts and stories we don’t personally like. Sometimes, the reporting will include accurate information that we need to be aware of. If people engage in ignorant, stupid, or even criminal actions because of information they learn, that is unfortunate but that must be dealt with separately. It cannot come at the expense of journalistic integrity. We cannot accede to a general heckler’s veto because some people may engage in harmful activity.
Count me out of any efforts by the HRC and GLAAD to stop the New York Times from reporting on transgender health related issues.
The author of this article is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and the District of Columbia. This article and all of the works on this Substack page are statements of the opinions of the author, only, and do not constitute legal advice; they are not intended to be relied upon by any individual or entity in any transaction or other legal matter, past, pending, or future. A paid subscription to this Substack page supports the author’s scholarship and provides access to research that the author has compiled, but does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The author does not accept unsolicited requests for legal advice or representation, and this Substack page is not intended as legal advertising. The opinions expressed on this Substack page reflect the personal views of the author only.
https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/human-rights-campaign-glaad-100-organizations-advocates-call-out-biased-harmful-new-york-times-coverage-of-transgender-people-in-joint-letter
Id.
Id.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Off Script: The Liberal Dissenter to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.