Some reporters wrote some things
They used purposefully vague language, even for the New York Times
To the surprise of absolutely no one, the New York Times went institutionally insane while covering today’s Supreme Court decision upholding a Tennessee law that prohibits doctors from mutilating children’s bodies.
To begin, reporter Adam Liptak writes, “The conservative majority on the Supreme Court on Wednesday voted to uphold a state ban prohibiting some medical treatments for transgender youths …”
The phrase “some medical treatments” seems oddly vague for such a case of such magnitude. What were these medical procedures denied to Tennessee’s transgendered youth? Were they not allowed to get a cast for a broken arm? Not allowed to get prescription medicine for a case of strep throat? Not allowed to receive chiropractic treatment for scoliosis?
Of course not. The New York Times’ purposefully ambiguous language refers to the following acts that Tennessee doctors are not allowed to perform on transgender youths: “prescribing puberty-delaying medication, offering hormone therapy or performing [sex change] surgery …”
In other words, the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibits doctors from fundamentally and irreversibly altering the bodies of minors to impress their Tik Tok followers or get more attention for their idiot parents. But that type of language would be too accurate for the “newspaper of record.”
(If you’re wondering where you’ve heard this type of intentionally vague language before, consider America-hating Ilhan Omar’s comments about the terrorist attacks on 9/11: “Some people did some things.” Those people were Islamic extremists, and the things they did all revolved around one very big thing: murdering thousands of innocent Americans. Omar shouldn’t be allowed to work in our government any more than doctors should be allowed to damage children’s bodies beyond repair.)
Scrolling farther down the page, one finds this dramatic headline: “The last time the court considered transgender rights, it protected them.” Reporter Abbie VanSickle proceeds to compare today’s ruling with Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia, a 2020 case whose decision protected gay and transgendered Americans from being fired … simply for being gay or transgendered. Comparing a case about outright discrimination in the adult workforce to a case about protecting children from unhealthy childish impulses is at best a false analogy, at worst a case study in stupidity.
Bastardizing language to promote insane causes is nothing new for the Lunatic Left. Mutilating children’s bodies is not “gender affirming care,” nor is aborting a human fetus a “reproductive right.” Today the New York Times proved that the words its reporters don’t write are just as nonsensical as the ones that they do.