Washington Post Both-Sides Medical Consensus on Affirming Care
An article on the Utah ban on gender-affirming care contrasts Republican opinions with those of activists, subtly downplaying the medical consensus on gender affirming care.
by Evan Urquhart
Total bans on gender-affirming care for minors are opposed by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and just about every other major medical organization in the U. S. They’re also opposed by “activists,” a nebulous category that could mean people employed at LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, individuals who donate to those groups or attend protests, supporters who agree with some or all of the aims of those groups but do not donate, people who discuss trans or LGBTQ+ issues online, or all transgender people.
So guess how the Washington Post decided to describe opposition to the ban on gender-affirming care in Utah?
screenshot from the Washington Post
Look. The full article is fine. It makes the medical consensus clear and does not spend overmuch time on misleading Republican talking points. However, by using the mealy-mouthed term “activists” to describe the law’s opponents, the Washington Post is downplaying the many sources of opposition towards the ban that do not come from activist groups. It’s also cueing readers to feel suspicious of opponents.
This is particularly true because transphobes have spent years making “activists” a dirty word by using it to describe any trans person who speaks or writes publicly about their experience, regardless of whether they engage in activism or have any association with an activist group. Transgender journalists are routinely called “activists,” as are ordinary trans people who post about being trans online. Activist has become a pejorative, a way for people who devote a lot of time organizing politically to oppose trans rights to demean and dismiss criticism. Ironically, the people who do this could be described as anti-trans and/or conservative activists themselves.
The Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets should avoid the lazy formulation “Republicans say this, activists say that,” when covering topics where the opposition includes many people who are not activists, or when the use of the word activist may be confusing due to the widespread misuse of activist to mean any trans person with whom conservative activists disagree.
