Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Will the real pseudoscience please stand up.

…an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language…

Like bleeders, uterus-havers, clownfish, cis and TERF? Or is the problem the fact the NYT didn’t use their preferred terms like bleeders, uterus-havers, cis and TERF?

…while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources.

Or maybe the Times reported on the contoversy surrounding how best to treat dysphoric children, and discussed options other than just “gender affirming” care. And as for the omission of “relevant information,” how about an admission that humans can’t change sex? Call me mad, but that seems somewhat relevant to me. And what about the testimonies of desisters and detransitioners? They’re villified and ostracized and accused of never having “really been trans.” As if anyone is. What about loss of sexual function and sterility? What about the documented harm caused by puberty blockers and wrong-sex hormones, not to mention the horror shows that can arise from surgical “treatments” designed to carve the body into a crude, non-functional visual likeness of the target sex? That’s a lot of data supression right there, all of it relevant. Informed consent much? And trans activists have hidden it, lied about it, denied it and shot a multitude of messengers who’ve dared to bring these skeletons to light. Watchful waiting has nothing to hide. Genderists have long since run out of rugs under which they could sweep their dumpsters full of dirty, monstrous secrets. Does trans activism really want to go down the path of science, and studies, and sources, and follow-ups? Because it if it does, it will lose.

…swimming upstream against currents of bigotry and pseudoscience fomented by the kind of coverage we here protest.

Are you going to protest reality, too? It is by far your biggest and most determined opponent. That’s a stream with a mighty powerful rate of flow, and you ain’t gonna get far against it. Where will you find the appropriate address to which you can forward a copy of this letter? The NYT could just write honestly about realities (which it did not itself create) and you would be complaining about “bigoted coverage.” And as for pseudoscience, you’re way ahead of everyone else with the Genderbread Person, not to mention your reintroduction of Cartesian dualism.

More than 180 contributors…have penned a letter raising “serious concerns” about the newspaper’s reporting on transgender, non-binary and gender nonconforming people.

The only thing keeping these demographics together is forced teaming, and a shared incoherence when it comes to defing any of these “conditions” in a non-circular way that doesn’t rely on sexist steretypes, or wilfully misgender the rest of the population as “cis.”

I’m amazed that, in this quote at least, they didn’t use the standard LGBTQ formula, as that could rope in gays and lesbians to artificially inflate their numbers.