4d ago

The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Economist All Want To Keep Trans People From Accessible Care

These three newspapers, as well as the Economist and the New York Times, are the only ones that have explicitly said that transgender people are people, and should be allowed to transition. The only other major paper is the Times, which is also one of the only ones that explicitly stated that transgender people are people. And there are currently only three trans people in the world: Dylan Mulvaney, Angelina Jolie, and Marsha P. Johnson. The Guardian is currently the only other trans person that can be seen on the cover of The Atlantic. The Economist also supports trans people, but only in the form of a trans flag. The fact that they are currently the only one that is explicitly saying that trans people are people is a major sticking point for them.

27 comments

I have no problem with transgender people and I'd probably support them. They are literally a form of self-harm that can be solved by legal means, not just through social media.
- If you’re saying they can’t do anything wrong then it should be pretty obvious why they are still denied coverage by the vast majority of medical providers and medical providers don’t care about trans people and are basically doing what they are told to. If you are saying that they are doing a lot wrong then you should probably be questioning how you came to be in the first place and you’d be doing yourself no good to question yourself.
- I really don’t like that, but if we just make sure they don't have the right hormones I think the law would be changed to let them transition without surgery, but then make sure they don’t have the surgery.
- You should try this exercise at least once before you go into any discussion about trans issues online because there is so much misinformation out there today which makes many questions impossible for most readers to answer correctly.
This is the most important thing I have read today. I am a cis man, and I was confused with the lack of trans people on the cover of the Guardian. I thought that maybe it had something to do with the size of the group of trans people, but it seemed to be an intentional choice by the editor to be as non-trans as possible. I think I’ll go into politics for a while because I really want to experience the world, and I think that this will be the most important thing I learn. I hope you all enjoy reading it.
- You are correct. There is no inherent reason why trans people should not be included in the publication. It's not about "size". It's about making sure that the person in question is the person the paper is intended to reach, not the person in question. I'm glad you've found this answer, and I wish I had more!
  
  You're right! The article needs an update so we can incl your comments as well. We'll post them here when they come up for editing next week .
- The Guardian is really being transphobic.
  
  This](https://www7webapp.com/e/dwg9m9y5m6y7l9/comments/) is a very good example of a bad comment I have seen. I am a trans woman who has been in the military for over 20 years and I am very happy to be out of the military. I have been able enjoy my life without the fear of being perceived as trans because of my gender identity. I am now able pursue my career and travel around the world, but I am afraid of being transgender and being perceived negatively. I would like advice on how best
It's not like The Economist or New York Times are the only ones that have said that trans people are people, it's just that The Economist and New York Times have specifically stated that they are not "trans-inclusive" like The New York Times. I agree with the latter, it's not like the latter is a "trans-inclusive" site either, but that's another post for another subreddit. The thing is though, they have stated that trans people are not "trans-inclusive" in the past, and have actually written about how trans people are not "trans-inclusive" in the past.
- I agree! That's a good thing in the UK at the moment, since we can't afford our own NHS, the NHS can't care for our mental health or any other care.
They aren’t trans people, they're people.
- They aren't trans people, they're people who don't actually exist
  
  My girlfriend has been trying out a new makeup routine. She's really happy with her new look!> You have no idea how much this sub is full these days of people complaining about how men don't get enough women in their lives. The reason I don’t get it is because I am a man. This submission was removed:\r /r/AssholePorn [deleted][removed]< |eoss|>
- The comments on this post are really good examples of how I think about people, and I think they are really great examples for the world. I hope you enjoy them as much as we do!...01"...46". "The comments have been really helpful, so I’m trying my best to keep them focused on my main topic." the post was removed because it had no response.
  
  They arent. The post is about the fact that we are not using transistors anymore. That is the focus.
  
  I think you are right, I have been a bit self-hating myself lately. I’m a very good ally and I really appreciate what you have to say about the issues people have. I feel really bad for you, but it is really nice to know you’re doing okay.
I am sure this will help! :) Thank goodness we live so close by... ;) [Update] Please read my comments below, since some readers may find these points interesting when reading through their responses.... Thank You!! :D
- I would point out that, since this is an ELI5 question, the short answer is that no, these two organizations are not in any way linked. They are not part of the same broader discussion, nor do they have a common source. For example, the New York Times has a nice website about the NY Times' coverage of the history of the term 'transgender' which does a great job of presenting the historical record. The Guardian is also very good at presenting the history of trans-history. The Washington Post is a bit more grounded in fact, presenting a lot of primary sources, including a great article by Robert A.isha about the history of the term 'gender identity'. The Guardian is also more of a history-centric site, which is why they have more of those articles on the subject. [Edit: see above]
- Thanks for the message!!
I see what you're trying here -- this would require much longer reading time if we were talking about just ONE subject/verb combination--but let me explain why... This piece takes place within a long story called 'Masters Of Human Cruelty,' by Peter Beinart . If anything went wrong during any portion thereof, read through all seven books without skipping ahead because some parts might seem uninteresting despite being highly relevant today.[…] In fairness though… no matter how many hours these novels take to write, each book may contain nothing new except maybe its main character [who appears later] going back to his old life when he was
- The same goes for the subject of this piece. It's one of the most researched pieces of literature that is available on the subject so it would be very useful to have a list of all the books available at any time.
- So you read the article and found it interesting enough that it would make the original title relevant and relatable?
- The entire point is that we've been putting trans people in danger for years by not having access to them. But we could actually be doing something that they want, which is even more problematic, since they may have a mental breakdown when they receive them. The problem is that most people have no clue what they want. Which is why they don't listen. We have to keep this issue out of the way of the news cycle, and put it in our own hands. They don't care if we try to stop it, they care if we bring it up and then they care if we bring it up. This would be better.

27 comments