Nearly anyone who has ever seen an event that is later covered in the press or is deeply familiar with a subject that a news article is written about has this experience: "gee, how could they possibly get this so wrong?" What's funny is that the same person will then cite other articles on other subjects in the same newspaper as accurate.
It has been many years since the Washington Post was good for anything but toilet paper. Some liberals were just later to realize it.
"This should be non-ideological issue" -- sorry, but there are no non-ideological issues anymore. Pick a tribe.
So disappointing & biased. Shocked once again at how words can twist the truth. I refute even the word ‘care’. How is affirming a person’s delusion considered care??
Please tell us about RFK Jr. I've heard other liberal friends say they've been following him for decades and consider him a very attractive candidate. But I haven't done a deep dive into him yet.
So, I read the article. But it's just a hit piece. Full-throated, insult-laden, massively one-sided, fact-free hit piece. Donald Trump could have written it (if Donald Trump could write).
Can you please point me toward an article with information in it on RFK Jr's actual views? I'm really, really interested in hearing both sides about him.
Thanks for the link. I'll read it, but right off the bat I'm guessing that an arrticle calling him "Mad" is not going to give an unbiased opinion.
I've heard RFK Jr *accused* of "falling for conspiracy theories." But that doesn't mean he does. It just means that's what the media is being told to hold against him. Probably because he is a very real threat to Biden.
I've only seen RFK challenged on one actual "conspiracy theory": he wants an open and honest debate about vaccines.
I personally am hugely behind covid vaccines. They stopped the pandemic. I've heard close doctor friends' stories of patients flooding ERs across the country, insisting they don't have covid, because they believe the conspiracy theory that covid doesn't exist--right up until they die of it. So I believe everyone should get the covid vaccination or else stay the heck away from the rest of us.
But I did not give my newborn all the vaccines recommended when he was born. Instead, I did copious research on all of them, then consulted with my pediatrician, and we gave him only the vaccines she recommended, saving at least one until he was a teen. And it turned out later that I was absolutely right not to give him the live polio vaccine, which was being heavily pushed at the time.
So I'm not an anti-vaxxer, by any stretch of the imagination. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't want to get a covid vaccination, you can stay out of public places--just as, when we declined to give our child the HEP-B vaccination, we knew he would not be allowed into school without it.
You make your choices and you live with the consequences.
But I AM in favor of open and honest debate, even about the covid vaccine. We all need to be able to talk about all issues--openly and honestly.
I am certainly concerned about RFK Jr's flexible stance on gun safety, but, again, he's just calling for open and honest debate. And I'm willing to listen to an open and honest debate about it.
RFK Jr has been a heavy-duty environmentalist since long before it was mainstream.
And RFK Jr is the only Democrat calling for an open and honest debate about the transgenderist lobby and the rights of girls and women. Until I learn otherwise, I'll vote for him based on that alone.
Look, he has some good qualities, and I agree with him on some issues, but he doesn't stand a chance of winning the election. Not a chance. So, I wouldn't entertain voting for him. You can do what you want, but I think it's a wasted vote.
I am going to post on Facebook and share this article. Rarely do I read something on this topic as plain spoken as this and rarely do I agree so wholeheartedly.
The stranglehold we are in must be broken. And this transagenda only agenda, must be challenged. Well done!
Thanks for addressing the misinformation and bias. I would like to add that while some states have banned medical procedures for gender-confused minors, that does not mean they have "banned gender-affirming care." I am grateful for anything that is done to protect children from acting on their delusional state, but prohibiting medical procedures while continuing to demand counseling that is always "gender-affirming" will solidify their confusion and add more kids to the pipeline for medicalization as soon as they are old enough to get it. I don't know what the solution is to that at this point.
Excellent critique. We should be encouraged, of course, that the Washington Post runs a report like this at all these days.
It is discouraging, however, to see this issue reduced to partisan, black and white, us against them tribalism -- that is not going to turn the tide and reverse the spread of this social contagion. While it is undeniably true that transgenderism has found its foothold among Democratic Party elites and the 'social justice warriors', it is not at all necessarily a liberal versus conservative issue. Reactively labelling transgenderism as Marxist is specious, Marxism purports to be scientific and transgenderism manifestly is not scientific. The much more accurate criticism is that transgenderism (along with 'queer theory') is postmodernist. One can see the influences of this pernicious 'philosophy' on both sides of the political divide in the U.S. -- 'truth' has become as subjective to the Trumpists as it is to the transgenderists. The rise and spread of transgenderism is complex, nuanced, and not yet fully understood sociologically, therefore, it is not helpful, in my opinion, to insist that there is a simplistic explanation for this social/cultural/political phenomenon.
There are many, many feet-on-the-ground liberals, feminists, atheists, rationalists, etc. that reject the transgender ideology (I count myself among them) -- and we do so on the basis of concrete, fundamental science and logic. We accept climate change, vaccine medicine, evolution, etc., so painting with a broad brush that transgenderism is a liberal, progressive, or Marxist plot is not going to advance the arguments against it among those who need to be persuaded. Indeed, the battle on this issue is not among conservatives, it is to bring those on the left who have been misled back to traditional liberal principles (ie., reason, science, tolerance, free speech, progress, democracy).
I encourage folks here to think about how to be the most convincing and not to be reactively dogmatic. The tide can be turned (and slowly is in my estimation) by being intelligent, knowledgeable, logical, and factual.
The transgenderism lobby was launched in Canada and the UK by the Conservative Parties. The lobbyists rightly saw misogyny, sexism, and homophobia as attractive to conservatives--just as they are in Iran--so those are the politicians they bought first.
2015 GRA Reform Introducing Self-ID was a Conservative Bill:
But liberals world leaders like Trudeau and Obama showed the transgenderism lobbyists that they'd have to put their money into the Liberal Parties instead. So they did.
Now they're flooding Liberal Parties with millions to promote the transgenderist lobby--much of that money coming from long-time Republican donor and Trumpster multi-millionaire James Pritzker:
But conservatives go off on rants against feminism as though misogyny, sexism, and homophobia had EVER been feminist values (no, they're conservative values)--as though feminists have not ALWAYS been fighting them tooth and nail (against conservatives)--as though the worst insult the transgenderists have were not an insult AGAINST FEMINISTS (most definitely not against conservatives).
It's just plain stupid.
Misogyny, sexism, homophobia, and runaway capitalism in politics are ALL conservative values.
If conservatives want to stop the transgenderist lobby, they're going to have to give up supporting that crap. Or stop whining.
Jeff Bezos has owned WAPO since 2013. Is it any wonder that his newspaper would be pro/peak Trans? He is MARKETING for his Amazon business! One can purchase it ALL on Amazon including Pharmaceuticals. Jeff is a "shape shifter" and will change with the trends in order to keep the $$$$ flowing into his pocket.
Paranoid conspiracy theories like this are offensive. Bezos owns the Post and does not determine editorial content. Unless you can prove otherwise, please don't make such accusations. He is losing tons of money on the WAPO and has better things to do than use it a a took to help Amazon. Amazon does just fine without actions that would destroy the WAPO.
Of course Jeff Bezos can determine editorial content based on the "style guides". FOX News has their own style guides, also....just for the other side. It's ALL about the $$$$$! No paranoid conspiracy theories from me. But I'm sure you probably still think that Bill Gates in an upstanding guy, too?...and NO, I don't think he was having us injected with microchips via Covid vaccines.
You are making a serious allegation. Prove it. And I assume the "style guides" you reference are available for us to review and see how it references content as you suggest.
For "us" to review? Who is "us"? You're the only one here in a snit about someone's opinion that you don't like, behaving as if it's a personal attack on you. Get a grip.
Never in the history of ever has a person who said "prove it" actually admitted, no matter how strong of proof they're presented with, that their opponent has succeeded in doing so. It's almost always a bad-faith request to provide cover for not having to believe something they don't want to believe, especially when the one demanding proof fails to set any sort of standard of evidence.
Writing style guides is huge in the marketing/ad business. You can find many online and they are not just for journalism. Style guides are used in social media, in Hollywood/music industry etc. I can't remember what reputable journalist (who got fired or quit NYT?) published their newspaper's style guide a while back. It's ALL in the marketing.
Merry Christmas Everyone -
-
Snicklink Parody: WEF [World Enslavement Forum] Head Klaus Schwab Announces "Vaxxmas Hits '23"
-
https://rumble.com/v41y45e--snicklink-parody-wef-
world-enslavement-forum-head-klaus-schwab-announces-v.html
Merry Christmas Elizabeth!
Nearly anyone who has ever seen an event that is later covered in the press or is deeply familiar with a subject that a news article is written about has this experience: "gee, how could they possibly get this so wrong?" What's funny is that the same person will then cite other articles on other subjects in the same newspaper as accurate.
It has been many years since the Washington Post was good for anything but toilet paper. Some liberals were just later to realize it.
"This should be non-ideological issue" -- sorry, but there are no non-ideological issues anymore. Pick a tribe.
Then I pick the tribe that is NOT being financed and lobbied by long-time Republican donor & Trumpster multi-millionaire, James Pritzker.
Robert Kennedy Jr is a Democrat.
Try again.
I also have some suggestions for WaPo, but they aren't very polite. They include the words 'where the sun don't shine'.
So disappointing & biased. Shocked once again at how words can twist the truth. I refute even the word ‘care’. How is affirming a person’s delusion considered care??
I share your view of RFK Jr. However he may be the best option at this point.
I agree, Awoman.
No. Absolutely not.
Please tell us about RFK Jr. I've heard other liberal friends say they've been following him for decades and consider him a very attractive candidate. But I haven't done a deep dive into him yet.
The main thing I've heard is that he falls for quite a few conspiracy theories. This might help:
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/robert-f-kennedy-jr-us-election-michael-wolff-b1117394.html
So, I read the article. But it's just a hit piece. Full-throated, insult-laden, massively one-sided, fact-free hit piece. Donald Trump could have written it (if Donald Trump could write).
Can you please point me toward an article with information in it on RFK Jr's actual views? I'm really, really interested in hearing both sides about him.
Thanks for the link. I'll read it, but right off the bat I'm guessing that an arrticle calling him "Mad" is not going to give an unbiased opinion.
I've heard RFK Jr *accused* of "falling for conspiracy theories." But that doesn't mean he does. It just means that's what the media is being told to hold against him. Probably because he is a very real threat to Biden.
I've only seen RFK challenged on one actual "conspiracy theory": he wants an open and honest debate about vaccines.
I personally am hugely behind covid vaccines. They stopped the pandemic. I've heard close doctor friends' stories of patients flooding ERs across the country, insisting they don't have covid, because they believe the conspiracy theory that covid doesn't exist--right up until they die of it. So I believe everyone should get the covid vaccination or else stay the heck away from the rest of us.
But I did not give my newborn all the vaccines recommended when he was born. Instead, I did copious research on all of them, then consulted with my pediatrician, and we gave him only the vaccines she recommended, saving at least one until he was a teen. And it turned out later that I was absolutely right not to give him the live polio vaccine, which was being heavily pushed at the time.
So I'm not an anti-vaxxer, by any stretch of the imagination. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't want to get a covid vaccination, you can stay out of public places--just as, when we declined to give our child the HEP-B vaccination, we knew he would not be allowed into school without it.
You make your choices and you live with the consequences.
But I AM in favor of open and honest debate, even about the covid vaccine. We all need to be able to talk about all issues--openly and honestly.
I am certainly concerned about RFK Jr's flexible stance on gun safety, but, again, he's just calling for open and honest debate. And I'm willing to listen to an open and honest debate about it.
RFK Jr has been a heavy-duty environmentalist since long before it was mainstream.
And RFK Jr is the only Democrat calling for an open and honest debate about the transgenderist lobby and the rights of girls and women. Until I learn otherwise, I'll vote for him based on that alone.
They call him a conspiracy theory believer because he is:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-launches-independent-2024-run-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes-from-vaccines-to-mass-shootings/?sh=6411cd213cef
Look, he has some good qualities, and I agree with him on some issues, but he doesn't stand a chance of winning the election. Not a chance. So, I wouldn't entertain voting for him. You can do what you want, but I think it's a wasted vote.
So roll over and throw up our hands? A third party would have some growing pains but we need to start somewhere.
I am going to post on Facebook and share this article. Rarely do I read something on this topic as plain spoken as this and rarely do I agree so wholeheartedly.
The stranglehold we are in must be broken. And this transagenda only agenda, must be challenged. Well done!
Unfortunately that is also true.
I had the same exact reaction to that WaPo article!!
We are if we don't get off our collective butts and actually DO something and be as loud and aggressive as they are.
I sure hope you shared your thoughts with the Washington Post.
Keep the lawsuits coming! Parents should be using as well.
Thanks for addressing the misinformation and bias. I would like to add that while some states have banned medical procedures for gender-confused minors, that does not mean they have "banned gender-affirming care." I am grateful for anything that is done to protect children from acting on their delusional state, but prohibiting medical procedures while continuing to demand counseling that is always "gender-affirming" will solidify their confusion and add more kids to the pipeline for medicalization as soon as they are old enough to get it. I don't know what the solution is to that at this point.
Excellent critique. We should be encouraged, of course, that the Washington Post runs a report like this at all these days.
It is discouraging, however, to see this issue reduced to partisan, black and white, us against them tribalism -- that is not going to turn the tide and reverse the spread of this social contagion. While it is undeniably true that transgenderism has found its foothold among Democratic Party elites and the 'social justice warriors', it is not at all necessarily a liberal versus conservative issue. Reactively labelling transgenderism as Marxist is specious, Marxism purports to be scientific and transgenderism manifestly is not scientific. The much more accurate criticism is that transgenderism (along with 'queer theory') is postmodernist. One can see the influences of this pernicious 'philosophy' on both sides of the political divide in the U.S. -- 'truth' has become as subjective to the Trumpists as it is to the transgenderists. The rise and spread of transgenderism is complex, nuanced, and not yet fully understood sociologically, therefore, it is not helpful, in my opinion, to insist that there is a simplistic explanation for this social/cultural/political phenomenon.
There are many, many feet-on-the-ground liberals, feminists, atheists, rationalists, etc. that reject the transgender ideology (I count myself among them) -- and we do so on the basis of concrete, fundamental science and logic. We accept climate change, vaccine medicine, evolution, etc., so painting with a broad brush that transgenderism is a liberal, progressive, or Marxist plot is not going to advance the arguments against it among those who need to be persuaded. Indeed, the battle on this issue is not among conservatives, it is to bring those on the left who have been misled back to traditional liberal principles (ie., reason, science, tolerance, free speech, progress, democracy).
I encourage folks here to think about how to be the most convincing and not to be reactively dogmatic. The tide can be turned (and slowly is in my estimation) by being intelligent, knowledgeable, logical, and factual.
The transgenderism lobby was launched in Canada and the UK by the Conservative Parties. The lobbyists rightly saw misogyny, sexism, and homophobia as attractive to conservatives--just as they are in Iran--so those are the politicians they bought first.
2015 GRA Reform Introducing Self-ID was a Conservative Bill:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-men-in-omen-s-changing-rooms-maria-v3hhxmk3p
Boris Johnson was a big proponent of the transgenderist lobby:
https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars
And, in BC, Canada--the woke capital of world's wokest nation--our transgenderist politician is Conservative man:
https://twitter.com/HannahHodson28/status/1431050193588391938
After all, transgenderist men are more politically conservative than gender critical women:
https://www.metroweekly.com/2019/08/study-finds-transgender-people-are-more-politically-conservative-cisgender-men/
Because AGP has always been a conservative male mental illness: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BkIQTu7BV2nifZ3sbSFpS7spWb9od3YU/view
But liberals world leaders like Trudeau and Obama showed the transgenderism lobbyists that they'd have to put their money into the Liberal Parties instead. So they did.
Now they're flooding Liberal Parties with millions to promote the transgenderist lobby--much of that money coming from long-time Republican donor and Trumpster multi-millionaire James Pritzker:
https://www.the11thhourblog.com/
But conservatives go off on rants against feminism as though misogyny, sexism, and homophobia had EVER been feminist values (no, they're conservative values)--as though feminists have not ALWAYS been fighting them tooth and nail (against conservatives)--as though the worst insult the transgenderists have were not an insult AGAINST FEMINISTS (most definitely not against conservatives).
It's just plain stupid.
Misogyny, sexism, homophobia, and runaway capitalism in politics are ALL conservative values.
If conservatives want to stop the transgenderist lobby, they're going to have to give up supporting that crap. Or stop whining.
WaPo too, is all over the map... They contradicted themselves.
• Their political affiliations were all over the map,
• “…conservative activists fighting to ban the gender-affirming care”
Jeff Bezos has owned WAPO since 2013. Is it any wonder that his newspaper would be pro/peak Trans? He is MARKETING for his Amazon business! One can purchase it ALL on Amazon including Pharmaceuticals. Jeff is a "shape shifter" and will change with the trends in order to keep the $$$$ flowing into his pocket.
Paranoid conspiracy theories like this are offensive. Bezos owns the Post and does not determine editorial content. Unless you can prove otherwise, please don't make such accusations. He is losing tons of money on the WAPO and has better things to do than use it a a took to help Amazon. Amazon does just fine without actions that would destroy the WAPO.
Of course Jeff Bezos can determine editorial content based on the "style guides". FOX News has their own style guides, also....just for the other side. It's ALL about the $$$$$! No paranoid conspiracy theories from me. But I'm sure you probably still think that Bill Gates in an upstanding guy, too?...and NO, I don't think he was having us injected with microchips via Covid vaccines.
You are making a serious allegation. Prove it. And I assume the "style guides" you reference are available for us to review and see how it references content as you suggest.
For "us" to review? Who is "us"? You're the only one here in a snit about someone's opinion that you don't like, behaving as if it's a personal attack on you. Get a grip.
Never in the history of ever has a person who said "prove it" actually admitted, no matter how strong of proof they're presented with, that their opponent has succeeded in doing so. It's almost always a bad-faith request to provide cover for not having to believe something they don't want to believe, especially when the one demanding proof fails to set any sort of standard of evidence.
Writing style guides is huge in the marketing/ad business. You can find many online and they are not just for journalism. Style guides are used in social media, in Hollywood/music industry etc. I can't remember what reputable journalist (who got fired or quit NYT?) published their newspaper's style guide a while back. It's ALL in the marketing.
Here is a radical copy editor's style guide (pro trans)
https://radicalcopyeditor.com/2017/08/31/transgender-style-guide/