How Did Journalism Fail on Youth Gender Medicine? - Jesse Singal

[@d46512]

Epic introduction. In this climate it took me a minute to realize that it was satire.

[@youtube_username_]

25:00 That's a failure of journalism, right there. Your audience doesn't know that the person being talked about is a man who "identifies as" a woman! The readers are being misled because you want to be polite.

[@roseh1132]

One statement: blind adherence to establishment agenda

[@LittlePhizDorrit]

I think he's spot on about Journalism being a "rich kids" field. This ties in very well with the idea that "woke policies" are largely luxury beliefs.

[@ruperterskin2117]

Appreciate ya. Thanks for sharing.

[@wadetisthammer3612]

6:24 to 11:48 - The danger of politicizing a scientific matter. 11:48 to 21:20 - Conflation and politicization of a more recent controversy.

[@kathybrocato5148]

IMNTBHO, the decline in journalistic standards is partially caused by a decline in math and science standards. Most are woefully ignorant of statistical methods and therefore it's easier to accept what a supposed expert tells them.

[@xaviermagnus8310]

Nope. It was when the institutions for degrees were taken over. Look at most journalist names... DEI took over those first.

[@xaviermagnus8310]

It was also largely caused by early investment in China. Take Yahoo for instance... They invested and it became worth more than the company, but they couldn't pull it out because China uses a dual currency system and the gains are a lie

[@d46512]

I favour a legal response ... that draws inspiration from the Nuremburg trials. No one disagrees that consent is an essential part of medical ethics, and that children are too young to consent to such irreversible procedures. Certain doctors were therefore willfully blind to the harms they caused. Journalists are being trained to present subjective narratives in the way that Vox has been doing, rather than to gather information and report on events. Attempting to be objective or balanced is outmoded. Is it any wonder that young people are obtaining their information directly from social media?

[@xaviermagnus8310]

And worse given the rates of it happening with bipolar etc mothers... we may need to assess parent health much more.

[@daughter_of_earth]

It is not intolerant to fault people who use "preferred pronouns" and refer to "trans kids." It is not a moderate position or a point of etiquette. It is capitulation and can confuse people who aren't in the know about this topic. I would agree with Cohen that it is not ethical. I hate the way Singal and, was it Bailey who smirked, are so dismissive.

[@xaviermagnus8310]

I can't extract what position you're even taking there tbh. I think there are different sets of rights, privileges and responsibilities and people often confuse these and try to force the world to conform to their desires without a logical framework behind it even.

[@Bingewatchingmediacontent]

Those who police language and force others to behave, believe, and act in certain ways to conform to their own rules are no better than the “woke” left. I am essentially lazy and selfish (like everyone else). and will call someone whatever pronoun my brain clocks them as. Because I don’t care enough about this issue to do otherwise. I’ve gotten in trouble for this in the past from TRAs and I refuse to live my life now walking on eggshells for the likes of you. I’m not going to now investigate whether a passing looking person is actually the other biological sex before I refer to them. You, that red headed lady, and the TERFs on Twitter can all suck it.

[@youtube_username_]

The position she's talking about is how journalists use the language of the trans ideology instead of being grounded in material reality. They're conceding ground by going along with how trans activists want us all to phrase things, and we're all being pulled into their fantasy as a consequence.

[@bryantaulbee2689]

Etiquette? What about facts?

[@janebennetto5655]

❤️🇬🇧❌❌

[@waterfallfaerie]

This comment section is so ironic given the references to extreme and perhaps misguided moral responses to science when crossed with social issues. Journalists who try to be evidence-based on this topic will not find success with an evidence-based audience because that audience is infinitesimal if practically nonexistent, and I find it almost comical that an attempt to be evidence-based on these topics draws forth salivating monsters who hate anyone and any idea even remotely in alliance with queer people regardless of their/its epistemological rigor, and in doing so simultaneously alienates the people who actually care about treating this issue with respect and care about the humans who might seek out this kind of treatment and want well-tested, evidence-based treatment to be implemented. Almost any time you question a blindly accepted scientific-political opinion in public, you may be attempting to be a good, evidence-based, skeptical journalist, but at the end of the day almost no one consuming this media wants good journalists or even good science, they just want someone who tells them they're right.

[@xaviermagnus8310]

Sounds like projection.

[@waterfallfaerie]

@@xaviermagnus8310 You missed the entire point and in doing so proved my point 😀

[@youtube_username_]

Trans activists are quick to call anyone who questions their tenets "salivating monsters" who just hate everything and everyone not heterosexual.

[@snackentity5709]

Do you make critical comments like this on content produced by the activist journalists and "academics" in question? Or do you just want to hear them tell you you are right and that everyone who pushes back against them or you is a bigot? Most people know that something has been seriously wrong and unjust with mainstream culture and (social)media for the last decade but lack the verbal IQ to undo the dominant "bigot" framing used as a weapon of slander and censorship. In the absence of that verbal IQ, people tend to just become tribal animals that lash out and conflate everyone with the slightest critique as the worst of the tribal enemy. Sound familiar? But this is minimized when opposing views are allowed in steelman form, and not forced to fester as strawman/boogeyman caricatures in an echo chamber sealed by censorship. The insanely lopsided political power in academia and (social)media, combined with social media rage-bait business models of the early to mid 2010s (that spilled over into mainstream media) convinced one side that the other hates their very existence. It just followed from there that "the ends justify the means" in terms of censorship and suppression of that "side". A decade of this delusion is long enough. It's time for a mainstream reckoning which elucidates this mechanism behind the intense polarization. Time to get unscientific activism and political vendettas OUT of academia and journalism. Enough of this. None of this polarization had to happen.

[@waterfallfaerie]

@@snackentity5709 My comment was not criticism, it was commentary. I simply recounted what seems to happen and how people seem to interpret it when one tries to pursue accuracy and possibly have good intentions on this topic from my perspective-that result seemingly being that most people who are drawn to that pursuit are antagonistic to the topic and want to 'disprove it' (aka force their opinion onto it) rather than find the truth regardless of what it turns out to be, and that sadly limits the potential of the whole "truth" part for those who it could actually help.

[@NualaAhern-d5g]

There are no trans kids