If 2023 is any indication, then 2024 may see a steady stream of assaults on transgender people, motivated by politicians who think they can use our life to their advantage in the” culture war” and electoral victory.
And if 2023 is any indication, I predict that many major news organizations will continue to unintentionally and obediently accept and adopt those right-wing frames and talking points in their coverage in 2024, contributing to a decline in public support for trans rights and, more generally, for LGBTQ+ people and other disadvantaged communities.
I fervently hope that I’m mistaken. But I worry that I’ll get correct.
In a crucial election year, the public needs more, and better, coverage of the motivations and forces behind this single-minded congressional assault as well as the actual effects of nasty rhetoric and already-passed legislation on trans and cis people, institutions, businesses, communities. and about how various activities are already using the strategies and tactics used in this war.
Although it may seem obvious, the battle has so far been steep.
How else would you describe the tens of thousands of thoughts that were last year and were devoted to debating whether trans people have enough access to healthcare as opposed to comprehending the motivations behind the laws that deny us that treatment? How else could a significant media firm focus its investigative report on the small percentage of trans people who regret their transitions rather than the many tens of thousands who never had the chance to do so? Or else, rather than focusing on how the medical system was failing them, how else could an in-depth account of a center where there was an increase in trans minors question whether those Minors actually needed attention?
I understand that less than 2 % of the community is transgender. Our activities are very different from those of most editors, making us unusual and difficult to understand or communicate with.
However, newspapers need to perform better.
Editors and writers have unintentional biases. In the case of transgender people, this frequently manifests itself in worrying more about those who may mistakenly identify as trans and later regret that choice than about the difficulties that transgender persons encounter.
For instance, tales about cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers typically feature a patient who has undergone medical intervention and is happy with the outcomes, contrasting their experience with one in which they regret their choices. Sound is balanced? The people who were unable to access treatment and their activities are left out. That’s equivalent to covering abortion care and focusing just on women who were successful in getting abortions, not on those who attempted the procedure but were unsuccessful.
Similar to this, stories frequently focus on the plight of someone who, after receiving medical interventions for gender-affirming care, now regrets the changes and is confined to a body that they are profoundly uncomfortable with and do n’t recognize. Your spirit really goes out to them. However, trans people who were denied like care and are now suffering in a body they are utterly uncomfortable with are often depicted in the stories.
The suffering of one group is wealthy while it is visible to the other.
And let’s not even inquire as to why the International Chess Federation believes trans women are ineligible to play games! — under the category of women. When news of its ban broke earlier this year, some newsrooms yet dabbled in that apparent question; instead, they were content to quote “both sides” of what at the very least appeared to be an odd decision.
There is more, but you get the point.
We need to improve. The Trans Journalists Association’s expanded type link, which directs writers to the important questions and issues to consider, is a good place to start. Another superb part is this one in Columbia Journalism Review. A great podcast by Masha Gessen and Lydia Polgreen about the broader stories surrounding gender and gender identification is something you could do much worse than talk to.
Correcting language and being vulnerable when reporting are essential when covering transgender problems. Asking what account may be told in the first place is even more crucial.
Do you focus your investigative team’s attention on the sub-1 % of women who regret having abortions or the numerous attempts to deny them care if you’re covering access to contraception attention? Both are completely true tales. Which one, however, best serves the public interest in publications with limited resources?
How about delving into day-to-day issues that are already affecting women’s lives more than chasing the twelfth story and sifting through the accepted medical consensus about gender-affirming attention?
If individuals with one type of treatment ( gender dysphoria ) but not another, how will states enforce procedure bans? How does businesses handle the traveling arrangements for transgender workers who must travel to states where restrooms are prohibited? To cooperate with sports transgender restrictions, what processes does institutions need to develop to confirm a student’s gender at birth? There is no shortage of compelling tales.
To be clear, I’m never hoping for, expecting, or simply wanting happy or positive insurance; rather, we should look into every issue and follow the facts as they may. However, we should carry covering trans issues to the same standards of good journalism that we hold all of our various stories to. the criteria that demand we look past our own blind spots, question our preconceived notions, and consider our content ‘ perspectives on the world.
Too frequently, we do n’t.
A conference attendee just asked if there was a quick way to consider getting trans insurance correct during he or she’s on the TJA panel. My response was straightforward: Get the story you were planning to tell and replace” trans” with “abortion,” “vaccines,” or” Asian” wherever you see it. If the account makes sense to you, you’re on the right track; if not, perhaps you should consider the reasons.
We’re hoping that check will be taken more frequently the following year.
