September 12, 2023 • 33 mins
Mia and Gare talk with journalist Evan Urquhart from Assigned Media about how the New York Times pushed the lies of anti-trans ex-clinic employee Jamie Reed and helped get trans healthcare banned across the country.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
It. It could happen here. It's the podcast that's called it
Could Happen Here. Things fall apart and put them back
together again, etcetera, et cetera. We're slightly rushing this intro
because Garrison had to leave in like ten minutes, not
ten minutes. But yeah, yeah, so we've spent a lot
of time covering the sort of various aspects of the
(00:25):
transgend aside we haven't The aspect of the angle we
haven't covered that much is The New York Times. And
partially that's my fault because if I every time I've
tried to write something about New York Times, it's devolved
into about seven hours and be reading every single time
The New York Times wrote an article that was pro Hitler.
So you know, it's it's difficult to be what you
(00:46):
would describe is reasonably objective when you're talking about these
people and not just start yelling about the Iraq War. However,
coma other people have done a very very good job
about this, and things have developed in the sort of
world of the New York Times printing just incredibly bizarre
transphobic articles and to talk about one of these things,
(01:12):
and some developments on one of their stories. We are
talking to Evan erk Hard of Assigned Media, who has
published a very very good story about some real nonsense
that The New York Times in their journalists have gotten
up to. So Fa, welcome to the show.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Yeah, thanks for having me. I'm always glad to talk
about nonsense.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah, it's been it's it's been a real time. Also
here is Garrison. Yeah. So I guess, okay, I think
the place to start with this is getting people caught
up with the incredibly bizarre story of Jamie Reid. So
I guess I wanted to start there. Can you talk
a little bit about who Jamie Reid is and how
(01:54):
the New York Times and a bunch of other very
less reputable somehow newspaper has got involved with this.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yeah, so, I mean there are certainly reputable newspapers that
have looked into the allegations of former gender clinic staff
member in Saint Louis, Jamie Reid, and those organizations, including
local papers, have found that her allegations didn't hold up.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
This was.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Months ago, kind of the beginning of the year. I
believe she kind of came forward with great fanfare and
an alliance defending freedom lawyer and said that the gender
clinic she once worked at was harming children. They weren't
engaging in informed consent. They were pressuring parents to go
(02:47):
along with these harmful treatments, horrifying stuff that if true,
would be just a major major scandal if true, and
the allegations all part pretty quickly. Numerous parents and patients
came back, came, you know, forward saying this is nothing
like what we've experienced. Some of that was pretty directly
(03:11):
refuting things that she said, such as, you know, kids
never got any therapy. They just saw a therapist for
an hour and an undercanologist for an hour and were immediately.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Approved for hormones.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
And so people came forward saying I did six months
of therapy, I did nine months of therapy.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
I wish you could do that. Like no, like right.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
I mean, it was very wild and very discredited. And
then for some reason, apparently back in May, as En
Graaschi of the New York Times started looking into this story,
and she didn't find anything different. I mean, if you
look at her reporting, if anything, she found even more
(03:52):
evidence that Jamie Reid is not accurate and not on
the up and up. But the story that she came
out with is really really weird.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
And I think the thing, the thing that that is
the most at least before before the most recent round
of incredibly bizarre stuff, The thing that's the most infuriating
to me about the sort of Jamie Reid's story is.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
That the thing that had come out by the time
The New York Times was writing about it was that
it looked a lot like if you look at the
stuff that Jamie Reid had been doing and people talking
about their experiences with her, it looked like she was
trying to sabotage kids getting healthcare because she personally didn't
believe in it.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
I talked to a parent, a parent who was also
talked to by The New York Times, who had really
just wanted like an educational visit for her like eight
year old, and Jamie Reid said, we can't do anything
for you.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Sorry.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Uh, you know, we can only bring you in if
your child is an adolescent ready to go on hormone therapy.
And so after the allegations came out, this parent got
in touch with the clinic Jamie Reid had left, and
they were like, what are you talking about. We do
educational appointments all the time.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
Come in.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
They spent you know, almost two hours talking to the
family about the different you know, medical possibilities in the
far future and just you know, trying to help educate
the kid about their body and their options years and
years before they never need anything.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Yeah, which is really infuriating because like the actual story
here is that you know, even even clinics that are
like trying to do the right thing wind up with
just incredibly deranged CIS people who basically can at every
point in the process act as a gatekeeper and decide
that like you don't get to get treatments, and that's
(05:41):
awful and is one of them. I mean, you know,
even even in place, even even in parts of the US,
at clinics that are good, that is a thing that
can just happen to you, is you get these sort
of gatekeeper stuff. But instead of doing that, instead of
again covering the story they had been handed about someone
trying to keep kids from getting health care.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
They did this.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
They you know, this this turned into this like like
full court press against Wait, Gary, you you're right.
Speaker 5 (06:15):
I closed my door because the air conditioner is way
too loudly.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
There's cats.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
But now the cats start screaming at the door. But
now I open the door, they and they don't want
to come in. They're just like all the threshold, just
like staring at me, like make a choice, come in
on them out.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
And I believe we're leaving this in.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
This is great content.
Speaker 5 (06:37):
They're out, They're gone. They had their chance. They blew it.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Yeah, what happens instead is this is this sort of
like full court press with a bunch of you know,
starting in sort of conservative media and then moving into
sort of liberal media, like using this story as an
example of like why why we have to like stop
like we have to shut down clinics and stuff while.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Children's hospitals are getting bomb threats, yeah, constantly, mostly mostly
due to kind of prodding by ghouls the Daily Wire
who are hunting for clicks. And yeah, there's also a
big part of this is like this tactic of attacking
like healthcare centers and clinics proved to be a pretty
(07:21):
good recipe to go viral. That's what the Daily Wire discovered.
And that's something that New York Times certainly took notice
of as well, is that, hey, this is this is
a way to drive a lot of attention towards our website.
That is just another another angle about this, this sort
of thing, which also, like it leads to real world consequences,
(07:42):
not just in terms of healthcare getting restricted, but also
like threats of violence against doctors. The right has historically
been completely willing to carry out acts of violence against
healthcare workers and let alone you know, trying threatening to
bomb a children's hospital.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Yeah, and the exact allegations were, We're really devastating.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
For these families.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I mean, I love to Heidi, who's you know, her
daughter's personal medical history was misrepresented, shared with the world,
shared in a million articles, and used to fuel gender
firming care bands, you know, I mean that is like
really damaging for a like seventeen eighteen year old who's
(08:27):
just trying to like live her life in kind of
a conservative town.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Which also and this is an another aspect of this,
is like she is sharing the private medical history of
patients at a clinic, which you are not allowed to do.
That is a which is very funny for people who
rant about these all of these people all the time.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Only we finally got one.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
We finally got an actual hippo violation.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
And uh yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Think the Hippa thing has been I mean, you know,
as Zingeration could have gotten that story, I feel, I mean,
I think it's been really undercovered. My understanding is that
healthcare workers are not supposed to have to share information
that's identifiable to the patient. And we have a patient
saying I can tell this was my story. And so
again I'm not a lawyer, but I think that people
(09:19):
have underestimated the extent to which real families could look
at these allegations and say, this is me, twisted, distorted,
used to hurt my family and other families like mine,
And there's kind of no outrage about that. It's kind
of this neglected backwater of this story.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Yeah, and I mean, I mean, the thing it reminds
me the most of is the is the original like
vaccines cause autism story where you have someone who is
incredibly politically motivated, who is incredibly unreliable, who's demlishrably unreliable,
who is not someone who's you know, who's someone who
in the field, Everyone's like, what is going on here?
This is complete nonsense, who like misrepresents and just straight
(09:58):
up lies about about like about about their patients. And
then also it turns out like has abused their patients,
or in this case is not has abuse of patients,
and in this case case like has successfully like stopped parents
from being able to talk to the clinic about what
the options for their kids are. But the media sort
of doesn't care about that all. All they all they
(10:20):
see is sort of this story and they they just
sort of latch onto it, and then they spread all
of this stuff and it's like, you know, it reminds
it reminds me a lot of that where like, wait,
we're still dealing with the consequences of just the completely
fake bullshit about like vaccism, vaccines supposedly causing autism, which
and again like that that's stuffing that never that never
(10:40):
would have gotten mainstreamed if the media hadn't picked it
up and ran with it. And yet you know, every
single time one of these absolute like politically motivated frauds
like gets up on the stands, like there there's the
New York Times doing doing their article about it, and
and like.
Speaker 5 (10:55):
This used to be like Glenn Beck's territory, who would
like bring out like a chocobar didn make like a
make like a crazy wall with you like yarn and
string and now it's it actually has been relegated to
the New York Times, the sort of the sort of
coverage that they're doing over these types of like moral
panics around healthcare. I think, like if if you look
(11:17):
at like Fox News twenty years ago, this was the
type of stuff that they did for a long time
before it was actually a little bit too insane and
they had to like fire Glenn Beck, and it's it's this.
It's the same sort of stuff now that's propagated by
people like The Daily Wire and then picked up on
by even more kind of mainstream publications.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
I mean, I think what's so insidious about this story
in particular and some of the other New York Times
stories is that they represent this as being their deep
investigative journalism. They represent this as being the finest that
the Times produces. And here is you know, the mother
of a trans girl who went to the reporter and said,
(12:08):
I can prove to you I have medical records, I
have emails to prove to you that what is in
this allegation is about my family and isn't true. The
reporter takes that and kind of sticks it in at
the end, you know, like that it's not lying, but
it is so totally distorting the truth that it feels
like lying.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
It feels worse than lying almost.
Speaker 5 (12:29):
Yeah, especially because there's like like thousands of people who
will just read the headline. They're not going to scroll
to the bottom of the thing and read a little
disclaimer and be like haha, jakay lie.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Not everything that's not good enough. Yeah, and I think
this gets into the party. So you very recently talked
to the mother of one of the girls who was
you know, who who read has been lying about and.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
To three of the parents who who Zine had talked to.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Yeah, and you discovered some very disturbing and incredibly bizarre
stuff that a Zene was doing to get parents to
stay in the story. After reads and like this was
in your follow up story, after a bunch of people
came out and were like, Hey, this is like not correct.
(13:20):
This person has in fact been lying about this. Yeah,
So you could you go into what you found about this?
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Yeah, it was truly truly bizarre. I mean I going
in There were some parents that contacted me because they'd
spoken to a Zene Grayishi and they were really upset
about the story. And you know, I went into it
thinking I'm going to do them a favor, I'm going
to let them feel heard. They feel disappointed about the story.
This kind of happens in journalism.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
I was not expecting what I got.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
So this parent had been very suspicious of a Zene
because of Azine's previous writing about trans issues, and so
I think she and her family kind of were very
cautious and very savvy, and they said, we don't want
to be part of a story that's going to be
negative on this clinic that we feel saved our daughter's life.
(14:13):
So you know, I'm willing to talk to you, I'm
willing to give you this information about this person who
lied about our daughter's history, but if you're going to
turn that into a hit piece on the clinic.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
We don't want to be part of it.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
And A Zene, you know, reassured her, calmed her fears,
and so you know they were going forward but cautiously.
And then this mother sees a zine at a courthouse
where Jamie Reid was testifying about the allegations in Missouri
and just sees the warm relationship between A Zene and
(14:47):
Jamie Reid, and she thinks something isn't right here. I
helped her catch this person in a lie. But they're all,
you know, buddy, buddy, that seems weird. So she, you know,
she first went up to Jamie Reid and confronted her.
She said, I'm liver toxicity mom, and you know, she
again noticed that Jamie Reid is kind of saying how
(15:08):
can I help you? What do you want and like
looking to a Zine like save me from this crazy person.
And so that's when the mother said, we're out. We're
not We're not going to be part of the story.
And a Zene did not take that for answer. Yeah,
it's nuts. She followed them to their car. As they're
(15:31):
trying to leave, she stood in the car door so
they couldn't drive away, saying, you know, please keep talking,
to keep talking. You know, I need I don't know
exactly what she's saying, but like I need you in
the story. And you know, the mom says, like, no, Zine,
we're out. Could please step away from the car, and
they drove away, and then Azine called them and called
(15:51):
them and they picked up, and a Zine managed to
convince them to let her come over to their hotel room.
This is the night before the New York Times article published,
and so now Heidi and her husband and Zene are
in this hotel room and a Zene is going paragraph
by paragraph telling her everything that's in the story, trying
(16:12):
to convince her that it's not a hit piece on
the clinic, and the family isn't buying it at all.
The family is like, no, you're describing a hit piece
on the clinic.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Where Yeah, But.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
They're left with this horrible, horrible conundrum because if they
actually pull out of the article, which as far as
I can tell, they really did have this agreement. Again,
azine wouldn't talk to me, so like it's a little
unclear what the agreement was or exactly what's going on here.
But in the end they decided, you know, there's no
evidence that this woman lied if we pull out of
(16:43):
the story. So they felt that they had kind of
no choice. Even though they felt completely betrayed, completely devastated
that their story was going to be used in this way,
they felt they had no choice but to stay in.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Yeah, and then like the and the way that like
it ends, the article like is is basically like the
article is like completely supportive of Jamie Reid, even though
again demolishrably in the article she is lying.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Such a weird article.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
You find someone's lying, but you're still spending all of
your words saying, well, so she's say she lied this
one time, but she's basically credible.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
Just bizarre.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Yeah, and then you know, and the New York Times
is response to this is like the piece you're referring
to was rigorously a reporter and edited and thoughtful and
sensitive to the moment. The Times stands behind his publication imberservely.
It's like, well, yeah, of course, of course it meets
the New York Times like incredibly demanding standards for journalism.
These are the people who published like these are the
people who published the yellow Cake Uranium story, like these
(17:38):
people like these people have published things that like a
a like these are these people have published off about
the Iraq War that like British tabloids wouldn't publish. So like, yeah,
it's it's not it's not I don't I don't think
it's that surprising to me that, like the New York
Times was like this passion editorial standards. But that's because again,
(17:59):
the New York Times backed Hitler and like deliberately go
forth the entire country. You're starting a war by straight
up lying about a bunch of stuff they do was fake.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Let me take a moment and say, there are a
lot of reporters who work for the New York Times
who do really great work, very very occasionally it's even
about trans issues. But like it is certainly not a
monolith of ridiculous nonsense. It's just all of the good
work kind of camouflages the ridiculous nonsense and lets them
get it through when they when they go on a tear,
(18:32):
when they go on a crusade against you know, against someone.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Yeah, And I mean it's it's they. I don't know,
The New York Times, they they pick, they pick their
moments to get incredibly ideological about this, and then they
hide behind the more normal reporting they do in order
to sort of like disguise the fact that again there's
(18:58):
sort of this person knows that their sources lie, is
demonstrably lying to them. I just I don't know, it's
it's the thing that was interesting to me about the
story too, is that as zen As, someone who up
until this point like seems to it like like from
everything I had been aware of a zine from.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Asinine did really good me too, reporting. I believe, yeah,
science any commany.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
In astronomy, which I like. The thing I don't talk
about enormously was that I did astronomy for a little bit.
I didn't do very much astronomy, but there was a
there was a small amount of time where I wanted
to do astronomy, and so, like I knew a bunch
of the people like in that scene a zine had
a very very good rep there as like the person
you could go to to talk about, like like to
(19:47):
do a B two story, which makes it even more
weird that, you know, I guess this is just I
don't know. I'm hesitant to just brush this off as
sort of like trans brain where like some like a
sister reporter starts covering trans stuff just completely loses their mind.
But you know, it's it's a really startling and disturbing
(20:07):
like shift from this person who had a very very
good rep on yes, like as someone you could go
to to, like her standing in someone's car door trying
to stop a family from driving away because they want
to because they don't want to be involved in a
story where she's lying about them.
Speaker 5 (20:24):
Who could have thought that a radical feminist could be
trans exclusionary.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
It's just crazy. People are complicated.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
It I think has to do with who she feels
sympathy for, and women in science are maybe people that
she feel sympathy for and who she or I have
no idea what reason doesn't And like innocent parents of
trans youth are apparently people she doesn't really have that
empathy for, have.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
That ability to, or the kids themselves apparently.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
I mean, as a transperson, I never expect a reporter
to for me. But these white parents, these middle class
white parents, please, you must take them seriously.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
The other thing I think I wanted to talk about
was the impact that this reporting has had on the
broader So we we alluded to this a little bit,
but yeah, I wanted to talk a little bit about
the way that right wing sort of right wing lawyers,
like right wing politicians have been using like specifically this
coverage and also sort of like the fear mongering around
(21:44):
gender clinics as something they're using to support, like health
to support healthcare bands on trans youth.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Yeah, Jamie Read's allegations directly resulted in a ban on
gender affirming care in Missouri. You know, there were families
that were going to the legislature week after week, and
we're keeping it at bay, and then these allegations came
out and it fell apart and the caravan was passed.
Speaker 3 (22:13):
And you know, it would be.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Bad enough if they found a bad clinic, but you know,
there's nothing miraculous about doctors who treat trans people that
makes them incapable of being an ethical you know, like
it would have been devastating if it was the truth,
but for it to have been, you know, all based
on lies, is it's just a really tough blow.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
Yeah, I mean, like you know, like I have friends there,
and it's it's like it's bleak right now, and I
think I've been really you know, I mean, I don't
know why I would I expected these people to sort
of like even remotely feel a single emotion about the
fact that directly the stuff, the actions that they did
(22:58):
led directly to a bunch of kids losing their healthcare.
But you know, there's been no there's been no reckoning
with this right as best I can tell, neither New
York Times nor any of the journalists, involve, any of
the editors, any publishers, none of the people seem to care
at all about the fact that they're about their work
directly is leading to the suffering and possibly death of children.
(23:19):
And I don't know, like I I this is one
of those things where like either either something about this
changes and you know, we get to a point where
it's unacceptable to sort of do this kind of stuff,
or we just you know, we wait for the next
round of journalists to like find some absolute crank who
they like dug out of some like Derain Superbub mc
(23:41):
mansions somewhere to like push push another one of these stories.
Because right now, like this is this is disappears to
just be an established path that you can use to
sort of like you know, like from from both ends. Right,
it's the thing you can use as the journalist's advantage career,
and is the thing you can use as like a
crank to be suddenly on the talk show start going
to get a bunch of money. It's just lying about
(24:02):
all of this stuff, yep.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
And I mean, you know, you try to inject some accountability,
but you can't make people listen. Yeah, this is what
I do every day, and I'm going to keep doing it.
But I'm under no illusions that since people are necessarily
going to start listening. It's just you got to put
it out there.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
So, I guess two more things I wanted to ask
about before we sort of wrap up. One is, Okay, so,
on the off chance that there are SIS journalists listening
to this, what kinds of things would you recommend to
them to, like, to make to make sure you a
don't fall down this rabbit hole and b to make
sure that if you are attempting to write a story
(24:44):
that is good, that you get things right.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
So, the Trans Journalist Association recently published an updated style guide,
which I would absolutely suggest people check out because it's
much more in depth than anything that I can can say.
But I think that the biggest pitfall people have is
thinking that they understand more than they do so and
(25:12):
I think that the kind of connected pitfall is just
a where there's smoke, there's fire, like, well, there must
be more to the skeptical side than there really is.
So while I, you know, always try to butter journalists
up by saying you can make up your own mind
and you know, look at the evidence, like, really engage
(25:33):
with trans people who are not just telling their stories,
but who are science reporters themselves, like myself, really engage
with experts who are not trans, but who understand this
medical information and are representatives of a mainstream medical consensus,
and really try to, you know, understand that the experts
are experts for a reason, and the mainstream consensus is
(25:55):
a mainstream consensus for a reason. And don't be so
quick to just assume that a bunch of activists and
cranks know something that everyone else is trying to keep
from you, because that is a conspiratorial mindset that is
below you as a mainstream cisgender journalist, and that you
wouldn't be falling into with you know, masks or anti
vacs or whatever. And it's just because trans people are
(26:17):
marginalized that I think people are kind of falling for
this crap and getting rolled.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
You are not ye conspiratorial thing. Yeah, well this is
this is something. This is something I'm going to talk
about at length more in one day. The like sixty
five thousand word thing that I've been writing about, the
lab leak stuff is going to come out. And you know,
one of the god I have I have spent so
(26:42):
many hours talking to epidemiologists. You have no idea, but
one of the things that you know comes up there,
and it comes up also just in general science. Conspiratism
is if someone like people who actually do normal science
do not start yelling about how they're being censored by
the scientific establishment and like there's a giant conspiracy to
(27:03):
stop them from talking about their work, even people who
legitimately are being like actually screwed over by scientific establishment, right,
people who have been abused, people you know, like people
of color, people from marginalized backgrounds, who like I like,
I know these people, right, I grew up with a
bunch of these people. They don't talk like this about that.
The only people who talk like this are absolute cranks.
(27:24):
And it would be really great if journalists realized that
actual scientists don't talk about science in a way where
they're like, ah, the medical establishment is censoring me. Would
I would love for that to happen. I don't know.
I'm skeptical that it will happen because it's it's a
(27:46):
great story.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
Everyone knows that there are times when the medical or
when the medical or scientific establishment is wrong.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
You, as a lay journalist.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Are probably not going to be able to tell I
am sorry which times those are so slow? Your role
don't envision Pulitzers and get grounded on you know what
the basics are, instead of thinking that you kind of
know better than the people who spend their lives researching.
This is my entreaty to journalists who maybe don't realize
(28:18):
how transphobia might be playing a role in there, wanting
to believe certain things.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Yeah, and I guess the last thing I wanted to
ask you about, Uh, yeah, I wanted to ask you
about the trans Data Library because I'm very excited about this.
This sounds rad.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Yeah, So you know, a few months ago I started working,
you know, with some other people in the trans community,
most of whom are you know, staying anonymous on a
resource to try and help people who you know, we're
really envisioned people who are in good faith, but trans
(28:54):
issues are not their main thing, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
So like not someone not as.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Ingoti, but maybe a Zingerati of five years ago, you
know what I mean, the person who is a journalist
who wants to get the story right, but there's so
much misinformation out there, There's so many groups with so
many different names. They're very skilled sometimes as presenting themselves
as you know, legitimate. So this is The Transdata Library
(29:19):
upcoming hopefully by the end of the month, is going
to be a kind.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Of you know, Wikipedia for the user.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Not Wikipedia and not like edible by the community, because
that's very bad idea for trade stuff. A resource on
what are these groups, who are these activists, what have
they done in the past. It is intended as a
journalistic resource, not an activist resource, which just means, you know,
if someone is there isn't anyone like this. But if
(29:49):
someone is a Nobel Prize winning scientist, we're not going
to pretend they didn't, you know what I mean. If
someone has legitimate potentials, you will find that out. If
someone has said things that are discrediting, you'll find that out.
But it isn't just a list of the most discrediting
things someone has said. And we are going to, you know,
directly try to get this out to journalists, local journalists,
(30:10):
particularly people again who have decent coverage, not people who
are you know, already on a tear and to democratic
politicians who similarly are you know, sympathetic but might need
an extra source of information.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
And yeah, it is, it is coming.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
I want people to be aware of it so that
they can start spreading it and sharing it when it does,
so that we can hopefully try to, you know, just
get some basic information into the hands of people who
I think desperately need it. They may not know that
they desperately need it, but desperately need basic information on
some of these groups and some of these bad actors.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
I think that's definitely a good thing because there is
a lot of information out there on the connections between
you know, the sort of right wing grifters who come
out of the woodworks talking about this stuff, and you know,
they're they're they're they're they're sort of demonstrable links to
far right extremist groups, to the Proud Boys, to you know,
(31:09):
sort of right wing think tanks. But that's stuff that like,
the the subset of trans people who spend their time
doing this are all very well aware of, but the
reporters who are sort of venturing into the space for
the first time don't know about it all. And yeah,
(31:32):
having having a thing we can put into their laps
being like, hey, this is these are all the people
who are like getting paid by the Lions defending freedom
and stuff. Yeah, that's what.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
I'm hoping to make.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
So the u r L is probably going to be
trans Data Library dot org. It is a little broken
right now, go to a sidemedia dot org. You know,
follow me, follow my Twitter, follow my project, and watch
that space for the trans Data Library because I'm hoping
it can do some good.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
Yeah, I'm excited for it. And yeah, do you have
anything else you want to say before we close out?
Speaker 2 (32:15):
I think that's it for me. Thank you so much
for having me on. This was really fun.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
And yeah, yeah, thanks for coming and thanks thanks for
reporting on this story because lord knows, the rest of
the media wasn't going to do it.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
That's why I started doing it.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
All right, this has been It can happen here. You
can find us on Twitter, Instagram, It happened here, pods
and yeah, go into the world and be better about this.
The New York Times, which is not an enormously high bar,
but it's a bar they consistently failed across. So you
too could be superor. Have superior journalistic ethics The New
York Times.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Ah, this is what I tell myself every day.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
It could happen here as a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 5 (33:02):
For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Coolzonemedia dot com.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts,
or wherever you listen to podcasts, you can find sources
for It could happen here, Updated monthly at Coolzonmedia dot
com slash sources. Thanks for listening.
It. It could happen here. It's the podcast that's called it
Could Happen Here. Things fall apart and put them back
together again, etcetera, et cetera. We're slightly rushing this intro
because Garrison had to leave in like ten minutes, not
ten minutes. But yeah, yeah, so we've spent a lot
of time covering the sort of various aspects of the
(00:25):
transgend aside we haven't The aspect of the angle we
haven't covered that much is The New York Times. And
partially that's my fault because if I every time I've
tried to write something about New York Times, it's devolved
into about seven hours and be reading every single time
The New York Times wrote an article that was pro Hitler.
So you know, it's it's difficult to be what you
(00:46):
would describe is reasonably objective when you're talking about these
people and not just start yelling about the Iraq War. However,
coma other people have done a very very good job
about this, and things have developed in the sort of
world of the New York Times printing just incredibly bizarre
transphobic articles and to talk about one of these things,
(01:12):
and some developments on one of their stories. We are
talking to Evan erk Hard of Assigned Media, who has
published a very very good story about some real nonsense
that The New York Times in their journalists have gotten
up to. So Fa, welcome to the show.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Yeah, thanks for having me. I'm always glad to talk
about nonsense.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah, it's been it's it's been a real time. Also
here is Garrison. Yeah. So I guess, okay, I think
the place to start with this is getting people caught
up with the incredibly bizarre story of Jamie Reid. So
I guess I wanted to start there. Can you talk
a little bit about who Jamie Reid is and how
(01:54):
the New York Times and a bunch of other very
less reputable somehow newspaper has got involved with this.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yeah, so, I mean there are certainly reputable newspapers that
have looked into the allegations of former gender clinic staff
member in Saint Louis, Jamie Reid, and those organizations, including
local papers, have found that her allegations didn't hold up.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
This was.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Months ago, kind of the beginning of the year. I
believe she kind of came forward with great fanfare and
an alliance defending freedom lawyer and said that the gender
clinic she once worked at was harming children. They weren't
engaging in informed consent. They were pressuring parents to go
(02:47):
along with these harmful treatments, horrifying stuff that if true,
would be just a major major scandal if true, and
the allegations all part pretty quickly. Numerous parents and patients
came back, came, you know, forward saying this is nothing
like what we've experienced. Some of that was pretty directly
(03:11):
refuting things that she said, such as, you know, kids
never got any therapy. They just saw a therapist for
an hour and an undercanologist for an hour and were immediately.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Approved for hormones.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
And so people came forward saying I did six months
of therapy, I did nine months of therapy.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
I wish you could do that. Like no, like right.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
I mean, it was very wild and very discredited. And
then for some reason, apparently back in May, as En
Graaschi of the New York Times started looking into this story,
and she didn't find anything different. I mean, if you
look at her reporting, if anything, she found even more
(03:52):
evidence that Jamie Reid is not accurate and not on
the up and up. But the story that she came
out with is really really weird.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
And I think the thing, the thing that that is
the most at least before before the most recent round
of incredibly bizarre stuff, The thing that's the most infuriating
to me about the sort of Jamie Reid's story is.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
That the thing that had come out by the time
The New York Times was writing about it was that
it looked a lot like if you look at the
stuff that Jamie Reid had been doing and people talking
about their experiences with her, it looked like she was
trying to sabotage kids getting healthcare because she personally didn't
believe in it.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
I talked to a parent, a parent who was also
talked to by The New York Times, who had really
just wanted like an educational visit for her like eight
year old, and Jamie Reid said, we can't do anything
for you.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Sorry.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Uh, you know, we can only bring you in if
your child is an adolescent ready to go on hormone therapy.
And so after the allegations came out, this parent got
in touch with the clinic Jamie Reid had left, and
they were like, what are you talking about. We do
educational appointments all the time.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
Come in.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
They spent you know, almost two hours talking to the
family about the different you know, medical possibilities in the
far future and just you know, trying to help educate
the kid about their body and their options years and
years before they never need anything.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Yeah, which is really infuriating because like the actual story
here is that you know, even even clinics that are
like trying to do the right thing wind up with
just incredibly deranged CIS people who basically can at every
point in the process act as a gatekeeper and decide
that like you don't get to get treatments, and that's
(05:41):
awful and is one of them. I mean, you know,
even even in place, even even in parts of the US,
at clinics that are good, that is a thing that
can just happen to you, is you get these sort
of gatekeeper stuff. But instead of doing that, instead of
again covering the story they had been handed about someone
trying to keep kids from getting health care.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
They did this.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
They you know, this this turned into this like like
full court press against Wait, Gary, you you're right.
Speaker 5 (06:15):
I closed my door because the air conditioner is way
too loudly.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
There's cats.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
But now the cats start screaming at the door. But
now I open the door, they and they don't want
to come in. They're just like all the threshold, just
like staring at me, like make a choice, come in
on them out.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
And I believe we're leaving this in.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
This is great content.
Speaker 5 (06:37):
They're out, They're gone. They had their chance. They blew it.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Yeah, what happens instead is this is this sort of
like full court press with a bunch of you know,
starting in sort of conservative media and then moving into
sort of liberal media, like using this story as an
example of like why why we have to like stop
like we have to shut down clinics and stuff while.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Children's hospitals are getting bomb threats, yeah, constantly, mostly mostly
due to kind of prodding by ghouls the Daily Wire
who are hunting for clicks. And yeah, there's also a
big part of this is like this tactic of attacking
like healthcare centers and clinics proved to be a pretty
(07:21):
good recipe to go viral. That's what the Daily Wire discovered.
And that's something that New York Times certainly took notice
of as well, is that, hey, this is this is
a way to drive a lot of attention towards our website.
That is just another another angle about this, this sort
of thing, which also, like it leads to real world consequences,
(07:42):
not just in terms of healthcare getting restricted, but also
like threats of violence against doctors. The right has historically
been completely willing to carry out acts of violence against
healthcare workers and let alone you know, trying threatening to
bomb a children's hospital.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Yeah, and the exact allegations were, We're really devastating.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
For these families.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I mean, I love to Heidi, who's you know, her
daughter's personal medical history was misrepresented, shared with the world,
shared in a million articles, and used to fuel gender
firming care bands, you know, I mean that is like
really damaging for a like seventeen eighteen year old who's
(08:27):
just trying to like live her life in kind of
a conservative town.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Which also and this is an another aspect of this,
is like she is sharing the private medical history of
patients at a clinic, which you are not allowed to do.
That is a which is very funny for people who
rant about these all of these people all the time.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Only we finally got one.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
We finally got an actual hippo violation.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
And uh yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Think the Hippa thing has been I mean, you know,
as Zingeration could have gotten that story, I feel, I mean,
I think it's been really undercovered. My understanding is that
healthcare workers are not supposed to have to share information
that's identifiable to the patient. And we have a patient
saying I can tell this was my story. And so
again I'm not a lawyer, but I think that people
(09:19):
have underestimated the extent to which real families could look
at these allegations and say, this is me, twisted, distorted,
used to hurt my family and other families like mine,
And there's kind of no outrage about that. It's kind
of this neglected backwater of this story.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Yeah, and I mean, I mean, the thing it reminds
me the most of is the is the original like
vaccines cause autism story where you have someone who is
incredibly politically motivated, who is incredibly unreliable, who's demlishrably unreliable,
who is not someone who's you know, who's someone who
in the field, Everyone's like, what is going on here?
This is complete nonsense, who like misrepresents and just straight
(09:58):
up lies about about like about about their patients. And
then also it turns out like has abused their patients,
or in this case is not has abuse of patients,
and in this case case like has successfully like stopped parents
from being able to talk to the clinic about what
the options for their kids are. But the media sort
of doesn't care about that all. All they all they
(10:20):
see is sort of this story and they they just
sort of latch onto it, and then they spread all
of this stuff and it's like, you know, it reminds
it reminds me a lot of that where like, wait,
we're still dealing with the consequences of just the completely
fake bullshit about like vaccism, vaccines supposedly causing autism, which
and again like that that's stuffing that never that never
(10:40):
would have gotten mainstreamed if the media hadn't picked it
up and ran with it. And yet you know, every
single time one of these absolute like politically motivated frauds
like gets up on the stands, like there there's the
New York Times doing doing their article about it, and
and like.
Speaker 5 (10:55):
This used to be like Glenn Beck's territory, who would
like bring out like a chocobar didn make like a
make like a crazy wall with you like yarn and
string and now it's it actually has been relegated to
the New York Times, the sort of the sort of
coverage that they're doing over these types of like moral
panics around healthcare. I think, like if if you look
(11:17):
at like Fox News twenty years ago, this was the
type of stuff that they did for a long time
before it was actually a little bit too insane and
they had to like fire Glenn Beck, and it's it's this.
It's the same sort of stuff now that's propagated by
people like The Daily Wire and then picked up on
by even more kind of mainstream publications.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
I mean, I think what's so insidious about this story
in particular and some of the other New York Times
stories is that they represent this as being their deep
investigative journalism. They represent this as being the finest that
the Times produces. And here is you know, the mother
of a trans girl who went to the reporter and said,
(12:08):
I can prove to you I have medical records, I
have emails to prove to you that what is in
this allegation is about my family and isn't true. The
reporter takes that and kind of sticks it in at
the end, you know, like that it's not lying, but
it is so totally distorting the truth that it feels
like lying.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
It feels worse than lying almost.
Speaker 5 (12:29):
Yeah, especially because there's like like thousands of people who
will just read the headline. They're not going to scroll
to the bottom of the thing and read a little
disclaimer and be like haha, jakay lie.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Not everything that's not good enough. Yeah, and I think
this gets into the party. So you very recently talked
to the mother of one of the girls who was
you know, who who read has been lying about and.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
To three of the parents who who Zine had talked to.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Yeah, and you discovered some very disturbing and incredibly bizarre
stuff that a Zene was doing to get parents to
stay in the story. After reads and like this was
in your follow up story, after a bunch of people
came out and were like, Hey, this is like not correct.
(13:20):
This person has in fact been lying about this. Yeah,
So you could you go into what you found about this?
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Yeah, it was truly truly bizarre. I mean I going
in There were some parents that contacted me because they'd
spoken to a Zene Grayishi and they were really upset
about the story. And you know, I went into it
thinking I'm going to do them a favor, I'm going
to let them feel heard. They feel disappointed about the story.
This kind of happens in journalism.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
I was not expecting what I got.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
So this parent had been very suspicious of a Zene
because of Azine's previous writing about trans issues, and so
I think she and her family kind of were very
cautious and very savvy, and they said, we don't want
to be part of a story that's going to be
negative on this clinic that we feel saved our daughter's life.
(14:13):
So you know, I'm willing to talk to you, I'm
willing to give you this information about this person who
lied about our daughter's history, but if you're going to
turn that into a hit piece on the clinic.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
We don't want to be part of it.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
And A Zene, you know, reassured her, calmed her fears,
and so you know they were going forward but cautiously.
And then this mother sees a zine at a courthouse
where Jamie Reid was testifying about the allegations in Missouri
and just sees the warm relationship between A Zene and
(14:47):
Jamie Reid, and she thinks something isn't right here. I
helped her catch this person in a lie. But they're all,
you know, buddy, buddy, that seems weird. So she, you know,
she first went up to Jamie Reid and confronted her.
She said, I'm liver toxicity mom, and you know, she
again noticed that Jamie Reid is kind of saying how
(15:08):
can I help you? What do you want and like
looking to a Zine like save me from this crazy person.
And so that's when the mother said, we're out. We're
not We're not going to be part of the story.
And a Zene did not take that for answer. Yeah,
it's nuts. She followed them to their car. As they're
(15:31):
trying to leave, she stood in the car door so
they couldn't drive away, saying, you know, please keep talking,
to keep talking. You know, I need I don't know
exactly what she's saying, but like I need you in
the story. And you know, the mom says, like, no, Zine,
we're out. Could please step away from the car, and
they drove away, and then Azine called them and called
(15:51):
them and they picked up, and a Zine managed to
convince them to let her come over to their hotel room.
This is the night before the New York Times article published,
and so now Heidi and her husband and Zene are
in this hotel room and a Zene is going paragraph
by paragraph telling her everything that's in the story, trying
(16:12):
to convince her that it's not a hit piece on
the clinic, and the family isn't buying it at all.
The family is like, no, you're describing a hit piece
on the clinic.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Where Yeah, But.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
They're left with this horrible, horrible conundrum because if they
actually pull out of the article, which as far as
I can tell, they really did have this agreement. Again,
azine wouldn't talk to me, so like it's a little
unclear what the agreement was or exactly what's going on here.
But in the end they decided, you know, there's no
evidence that this woman lied if we pull out of
(16:43):
the story. So they felt that they had kind of
no choice. Even though they felt completely betrayed, completely devastated
that their story was going to be used in this way,
they felt they had no choice but to stay in.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Yeah, and then like the and the way that like
it ends, the article like is is basically like the
article is like completely supportive of Jamie Reid, even though
again demolishrably in the article she is lying.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Such a weird article.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
You find someone's lying, but you're still spending all of
your words saying, well, so she's say she lied this
one time, but she's basically credible.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
Just bizarre.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Yeah, and then you know, and the New York Times
is response to this is like the piece you're referring
to was rigorously a reporter and edited and thoughtful and
sensitive to the moment. The Times stands behind his publication imberservely.
It's like, well, yeah, of course, of course it meets
the New York Times like incredibly demanding standards for journalism.
These are the people who published like these are the
people who published the yellow Cake Uranium story, like these
(17:38):
people like these people have published things that like a
a like these are these people have published off about
the Iraq War that like British tabloids wouldn't publish. So like, yeah,
it's it's not it's not I don't I don't think
it's that surprising to me that, like the New York
Times was like this passion editorial standards. But that's because again,
(17:59):
the New York Times backed Hitler and like deliberately go
forth the entire country. You're starting a war by straight
up lying about a bunch of stuff they do was fake.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Let me take a moment and say, there are a
lot of reporters who work for the New York Times
who do really great work, very very occasionally it's even
about trans issues. But like it is certainly not a
monolith of ridiculous nonsense. It's just all of the good
work kind of camouflages the ridiculous nonsense and lets them
get it through when they when they go on a tear,
(18:32):
when they go on a crusade against you know, against someone.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Yeah, And I mean it's it's they. I don't know,
The New York Times, they they pick, they pick their
moments to get incredibly ideological about this, and then they
hide behind the more normal reporting they do in order
to sort of like disguise the fact that again there's
(18:58):
sort of this person knows that their sources lie, is
demonstrably lying to them. I just I don't know, it's
it's the thing that was interesting to me about the
story too, is that as zen As, someone who up
until this point like seems to it like like from
everything I had been aware of a zine from.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Asinine did really good me too, reporting. I believe, yeah,
science any commany.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
In astronomy, which I like. The thing I don't talk
about enormously was that I did astronomy for a little bit.
I didn't do very much astronomy, but there was a
there was a small amount of time where I wanted
to do astronomy, and so, like I knew a bunch
of the people like in that scene a zine had
a very very good rep there as like the person
you could go to to talk about, like like to
(19:47):
do a B two story, which makes it even more
weird that, you know, I guess this is just I
don't know. I'm hesitant to just brush this off as
sort of like trans brain where like some like a
sister reporter starts covering trans stuff just completely loses their mind.
But you know, it's it's a really startling and disturbing
(20:07):
like shift from this person who had a very very
good rep on yes, like as someone you could go
to to, like her standing in someone's car door trying
to stop a family from driving away because they want
to because they don't want to be involved in a
story where she's lying about them.
Speaker 5 (20:24):
Who could have thought that a radical feminist could be
trans exclusionary.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
It's just crazy. People are complicated.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
It I think has to do with who she feels
sympathy for, and women in science are maybe people that
she feel sympathy for and who she or I have
no idea what reason doesn't And like innocent parents of
trans youth are apparently people she doesn't really have that
empathy for, have.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
That ability to, or the kids themselves apparently.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
I mean, as a transperson, I never expect a reporter
to for me. But these white parents, these middle class
white parents, please, you must take them seriously.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
The other thing I think I wanted to talk about
was the impact that this reporting has had on the
broader So we we alluded to this a little bit,
but yeah, I wanted to talk a little bit about
the way that right wing sort of right wing lawyers,
like right wing politicians have been using like specifically this
coverage and also sort of like the fear mongering around
(21:44):
gender clinics as something they're using to support, like health
to support healthcare bands on trans youth.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Yeah, Jamie Read's allegations directly resulted in a ban on
gender affirming care in Missouri. You know, there were families
that were going to the legislature week after week, and
we're keeping it at bay, and then these allegations came
out and it fell apart and the caravan was passed.
Speaker 3 (22:13):
And you know, it would be.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Bad enough if they found a bad clinic, but you know,
there's nothing miraculous about doctors who treat trans people that
makes them incapable of being an ethical you know, like
it would have been devastating if it was the truth,
but for it to have been, you know, all based
on lies, is it's just a really tough blow.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
Yeah, I mean, like you know, like I have friends there,
and it's it's like it's bleak right now, and I
think I've been really you know, I mean, I don't
know why I would I expected these people to sort
of like even remotely feel a single emotion about the
fact that directly the stuff, the actions that they did
(22:58):
led directly to a bunch of kids losing their healthcare.
But you know, there's been no there's been no reckoning
with this right as best I can tell, neither New
York Times nor any of the journalists, involve, any of
the editors, any publishers, none of the people seem to care
at all about the fact that they're about their work
directly is leading to the suffering and possibly death of children.
(23:19):
And I don't know, like I I this is one
of those things where like either either something about this
changes and you know, we get to a point where
it's unacceptable to sort of do this kind of stuff,
or we just you know, we wait for the next
round of journalists to like find some absolute crank who
they like dug out of some like Derain Superbub mc
(23:41):
mansions somewhere to like push push another one of these stories.
Because right now, like this is this is disappears to
just be an established path that you can use to
sort of like you know, like from from both ends. Right,
it's the thing you can use as the journalist's advantage career,
and is the thing you can use as like a
crank to be suddenly on the talk show start going
to get a bunch of money. It's just lying about
(24:02):
all of this stuff, yep.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
And I mean, you know, you try to inject some accountability,
but you can't make people listen. Yeah, this is what
I do every day, and I'm going to keep doing it.
But I'm under no illusions that since people are necessarily
going to start listening. It's just you got to put
it out there.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
So, I guess two more things I wanted to ask
about before we sort of wrap up. One is, Okay, so,
on the off chance that there are SIS journalists listening
to this, what kinds of things would you recommend to
them to, like, to make to make sure you a
don't fall down this rabbit hole and b to make
sure that if you are attempting to write a story
(24:44):
that is good, that you get things right.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
So, the Trans Journalist Association recently published an updated style guide,
which I would absolutely suggest people check out because it's
much more in depth than anything that I can can say.
But I think that the biggest pitfall people have is
thinking that they understand more than they do so and
(25:12):
I think that the kind of connected pitfall is just
a where there's smoke, there's fire, like, well, there must
be more to the skeptical side than there really is.
So while I, you know, always try to butter journalists
up by saying you can make up your own mind
and you know, look at the evidence, like, really engage
(25:33):
with trans people who are not just telling their stories,
but who are science reporters themselves, like myself, really engage
with experts who are not trans, but who understand this
medical information and are representatives of a mainstream medical consensus,
and really try to, you know, understand that the experts
are experts for a reason, and the mainstream consensus is
(25:55):
a mainstream consensus for a reason. And don't be so
quick to just assume that a bunch of activists and
cranks know something that everyone else is trying to keep
from you, because that is a conspiratorial mindset that is
below you as a mainstream cisgender journalist, and that you
wouldn't be falling into with you know, masks or anti
vacs or whatever. And it's just because trans people are
(26:17):
marginalized that I think people are kind of falling for
this crap and getting rolled.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
You are not ye conspiratorial thing. Yeah, well this is
this is something. This is something I'm going to talk
about at length more in one day. The like sixty
five thousand word thing that I've been writing about, the
lab leak stuff is going to come out. And you know,
one of the god I have I have spent so
(26:42):
many hours talking to epidemiologists. You have no idea, but
one of the things that you know comes up there,
and it comes up also just in general science. Conspiratism
is if someone like people who actually do normal science
do not start yelling about how they're being censored by
the scientific establishment and like there's a giant conspiracy to
(27:03):
stop them from talking about their work, even people who
legitimately are being like actually screwed over by scientific establishment, right,
people who have been abused, people you know, like people
of color, people from marginalized backgrounds, who like I like,
I know these people, right, I grew up with a
bunch of these people. They don't talk like this about that.
The only people who talk like this are absolute cranks.
(27:24):
And it would be really great if journalists realized that
actual scientists don't talk about science in a way where
they're like, ah, the medical establishment is censoring me. Would
I would love for that to happen. I don't know.
I'm skeptical that it will happen because it's it's a
(27:46):
great story.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
Everyone knows that there are times when the medical or
when the medical or scientific establishment is wrong.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
You, as a lay journalist.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Are probably not going to be able to tell I
am sorry which times those are so slow? Your role
don't envision Pulitzers and get grounded on you know what
the basics are, instead of thinking that you kind of
know better than the people who spend their lives researching.
This is my entreaty to journalists who maybe don't realize
(28:18):
how transphobia might be playing a role in there, wanting
to believe certain things.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Yeah, and I guess the last thing I wanted to
ask you about, Uh, yeah, I wanted to ask you
about the trans Data Library because I'm very excited about this.
This sounds rad.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Yeah, So you know, a few months ago I started working,
you know, with some other people in the trans community,
most of whom are you know, staying anonymous on a
resource to try and help people who you know, we're
really envisioned people who are in good faith, but trans
(28:54):
issues are not their main thing, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
So like not someone not as.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Ingoti, but maybe a Zingerati of five years ago, you
know what I mean, the person who is a journalist
who wants to get the story right, but there's so
much misinformation out there, There's so many groups with so
many different names. They're very skilled sometimes as presenting themselves
as you know, legitimate. So this is The Transdata Library
(29:19):
upcoming hopefully by the end of the month, is going
to be a kind.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Of you know, Wikipedia for the user.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Not Wikipedia and not like edible by the community, because
that's very bad idea for trade stuff. A resource on
what are these groups, who are these activists, what have
they done in the past. It is intended as a
journalistic resource, not an activist resource, which just means, you know,
if someone is there isn't anyone like this. But if
(29:49):
someone is a Nobel Prize winning scientist, we're not going
to pretend they didn't, you know what I mean. If
someone has legitimate potentials, you will find that out. If
someone has said things that are discrediting, you'll find that out.
But it isn't just a list of the most discrediting
things someone has said. And we are going to, you know,
directly try to get this out to journalists, local journalists,
(30:10):
particularly people again who have decent coverage, not people who
are you know, already on a tear and to democratic
politicians who similarly are you know, sympathetic but might need
an extra source of information.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
And yeah, it is, it is coming.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
I want people to be aware of it so that
they can start spreading it and sharing it when it does,
so that we can hopefully try to, you know, just
get some basic information into the hands of people who
I think desperately need it. They may not know that
they desperately need it, but desperately need basic information on
some of these groups and some of these bad actors.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
I think that's definitely a good thing because there is
a lot of information out there on the connections between
you know, the sort of right wing grifters who come
out of the woodworks talking about this stuff, and you know,
they're they're they're they're they're sort of demonstrable links to
far right extremist groups, to the Proud Boys, to you know,
(31:09):
sort of right wing think tanks. But that's stuff that like,
the the subset of trans people who spend their time
doing this are all very well aware of, but the
reporters who are sort of venturing into the space for
the first time don't know about it all. And yeah,
(31:32):
having having a thing we can put into their laps
being like, hey, this is these are all the people
who are like getting paid by the Lions defending freedom
and stuff. Yeah, that's what.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
I'm hoping to make.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
So the u r L is probably going to be
trans Data Library dot org. It is a little broken
right now, go to a sidemedia dot org. You know,
follow me, follow my Twitter, follow my project, and watch
that space for the trans Data Library because I'm hoping
it can do some good.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
Yeah, I'm excited for it. And yeah, do you have
anything else you want to say before we close out?
Speaker 2 (32:15):
I think that's it for me. Thank you so much
for having me on. This was really fun.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
And yeah, yeah, thanks for coming and thanks thanks for
reporting on this story because lord knows, the rest of
the media wasn't going to do it.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
That's why I started doing it.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
All right, this has been It can happen here. You
can find us on Twitter, Instagram, It happened here, pods
and yeah, go into the world and be better about this.
The New York Times, which is not an enormously high bar,
but it's a bar they consistently failed across. So you
too could be superor. Have superior journalistic ethics The New
York Times.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Ah, this is what I tell myself every day.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
It could happen here as a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 5 (33:02):
For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Coolzonemedia dot com.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts,
or wherever you listen to podcasts, you can find sources
for It could happen here, Updated monthly at Coolzonmedia dot
com slash sources. Thanks for listening.
It Could Happen Here News
Hosts And Creators
Robert Evans
Garrison Davis
James Stout
Show Links
AboutPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.