No one in his or her right (or left) mind would expect the college of journalism cardinals at The New York Times to write a balanced story about one of the latest battles in Texas over core doctrines of the Sexual Revolution.
In this case, I am not referring to Gray Lady coverage of the state’s efforts to ban most abortions after unborn children have detectable heartbeats, which is about six weeks into pregnancies.
No, I am referring to a massive new story about Gov. Greg Abbott call for child-abuse investigations of parents who back appeals by their children and teens to begin medical efforts to transition to another gender. The double-decker headline is rather restrained, when one considers the level of outrage among the vast majority of Times-persons.
Texas Investigates Parents Over Care for Transgender Youth, Suit Says
The investigations by the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services started last week with an employee of the agency, according to the suit, after Gov. Greg Abbott called for such inquiries.
As I said, no one would expect the Times to do a balanced story on this kind of subject, one that is so close to the newspaper’s doctrinal heart.
I was, however, surprised that this story didn’t include (a) some kind of reference to the newspaper’s involvement in an important discussion of a related topic by two of America’s leading trans activists and medical professionals and (b) some input from religious conservatives — major players in Texas life — discussing whether Abbott’s actions limit parental rights in decisions affecting their children. Religious conservatives have been very concerned, in the past, about government efforts (see this ongoing Canada case) to punish parents who oppose transition efforts by their children (usually backed by a former spouse).
Back to the Times report. Here is some crucial material:
The investigations by the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services, which have not been previously reported, were started in response to an order from Mr. Abbott to the agency, the lawsuit says. The order followed a nonbinding opinion by the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, that parents who provide their transgender teenagers with puberty-suppressing drugs or other medically accepted treatments — which doctors describe as gender-affirming care — could be investigated for child abuse.
Among the first to be investigated was an employee of the state protective services agency who has a 16-year-old transgender child. On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and Lambda Legal went to state court in Austin to try to stop the inquiry.
The employee, who was not named in the court filing, works on the review of reports of abuse and neglect. She was placed on administrative leave last week, according to the filing, and on Friday was visited by an investigator from the agency, which is also seeking medical records related to her child. The family of the child, identified in court documents only as Mary Doe, has refused to voluntarily turn over the records.
As readers would expect, the Times sees no need to qualify or even attribute material linked to the claim that all doctors back “puberty-suppressing drugs or other medically accepted treatments” as “gender-affirming care” for children and teens.
Times leaders may or may not have read the essay — “Top Trans Doctors Blow the Whistle on ‘Sloppy’ Care” — that ran last October in the “Common Sense” Substack newsletter of former Times writer Bari Weiss.
Addressing the mass-media orthodoxy on “gender-affirming care” this article noted:
Anyone who dared disagree or depart from any of its core tenets, including young women who publicly detransitioned, were inevitably smeared as hateful and accused of harming children.
But that new orthodoxy has gone too far, according to two of the most prominent providers in the field of transgender medicine: Dr. Marci Bowers, a world-renowned vaginoplasty specialist who operated on reality-television star Jazz Jennings; and Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist at the University of California San Francisco’s Child and Adolescent Gender Clinic.
In the course of their careers, both have seen thousands of patients. Both are board members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the organization that sets the standards worldwide for transgender medical care. And both are transgender women.
Earlier this month, Anderson told me she submitted a co-authored op-ed to The New York Times warning that many transgender healthcare providers were treating kids recklessly. The Times passed, explaining it was “outside our coverage priorities right now.”
Obviously, that information contained in this article are not directly linked to Abbott’s actions in Texas. It would be stupid to try to anticipate what Bowers and Anderson would have to say about this new front in the trans debates. What I am saying is that their voices, and the voices of other professionals with similar views, are relevant to this new Times report.
It would certainly be fair game to ask conservatives in Abbott’s camp if they consulted with medical professionals on both sides of this cultural war. As stated earlier, conservatives should also be asked about “parental rights,” when making decisions about “gender-affirming care.” Why not talk to Texas Baptists and Catholic leaders, at the very least?
The Times, and other elite newsroom, will certainly have opportunities for new reporting on this topic. The Times story noted:
It was not clear if Mr. Abbott’s order would survive judicial scrutiny. The order does not change Texas law, and several county attorneys and district attorneys have said that they would not prosecute families for child abuse under the new definition. Still, the directive by Mr. Abbott has had a chilling effect, and the ramifications of the redefinition are significant.
As Mr. Abbott described in his letter, the order would mean that “all licensed professionals who have direct contact with children” would be required to report to state authorities those that they believe are receiving gender-affirming treatment, or face criminal penalties.
In the court filing on Tuesday, the A.C.L.U. of Texas and Lambda Legal, a civil rights organization focusing on the L.G.B.T.Q. community, sought to block the request for medical records in the employee’s case and, more broadly, challenged the legitimacy of the investigation and the power of the governor to change the definition of child abuse. According to the filing, other investigations have also begun.
Stay tuned.
FIRST IMAGE: Disney trans pin, for sale at ShopDisney.com