Internet arguments seem to work like a well-run subway system: don't worry if you miss one of them, there will be another in a couple minutes.

The one that made its way into my face yesterday on Bluesky was brought to us my Jeopardy! host Ken Jennings talking about how him and his wife like to play the New York Times' spelling bee game.

Seems fairly inert, doesn't it?

On of the responses to his post was that being a New York Times game, showing off that you play it (which means you're paying them) is fairly insulting to trans people. After that, it was off to the races and the argument spun out from there.

I don't think there is much to debate in the rightness or wrongness of the argument: as the sort of Anglosphere's "newspaper of record" the New York Times, is also, as a matter editorial direction, profoundly opposed to trans rights and existence in general.

See the following:

Exclusive: How The New York Times Changed Its Coverage of Trans People, Why are America's largest newspapers stigmatizing queer people?, The New York Times Helped Turn Trans Rights Into Political Controversy, Analysis Finds, The New York Times Quotes Trans People Less Often Than Other Major News Outlets, The New York Times Fails to Include Trans Voices in Majority of Articles About Trans Issues, Instead of reporting on actual news, the New York Times goes after trans people again, and A mom asked the NYT publisher about harm from trans coverage. He defended the process instead

Given how frequently the Times had been cited by US courts and politicians and their wider influence vis-a-vis sentiment across certain sectors in society, I believe them to be among the more malignant factors in the recent erosion of trans rights in the US and elsewhere in English-speaking countries.

Given this, I think it would be reasonable to avoid giving the Times money, since, like a certain YA fiction writer, they use financial success as encouragement for their editorial and extracurricular direction.

What Happens When They Don't Care?

Access to just-so recipes geared to the desires and anxieties of white middle-and-upper-middle class people, crosswords that are just challenging enough for professionals who could use confirmation that they still remember a film theory course they took in 1994, and word puzzles that help pass the time are all clearly more important then trans peoples' right to participate fully in society.

This is to say nothing of the sense of self-importance many people may derive from paying for access from an "important" newspaper.

Don't laugh, I am in their target demographic, at least where income and education are concerned. I can't begin to count the number of times over the years where the posture straightens just a little once they list the New York Times, usually after a quick skate over The Globe and Mail, to prove that they're locally-minded enough to also support the "good" backwater paper.

So, we have one of the only successful-in-its-own-right newspapers out there and its paying supporters are emotionally attached to it and what it says about them. It reminds me a bit of the niche Apple holds (or at least held before phones came into the picture).

What's a transsexual to do? When they see someone who they believed was fine on trans rights plugging quarters into a rights-grinding machine? Second-order to buying certain wizard-related merchandise in 2026, but there is still a direct dollar-in-rights-removed mechanism at play.

Well, if you're like me, you say nothing.

You note it with some disappointment and skate on. At least they're making the right mouth noises most of the time and it's just a crossword. It's not ideal, but at least they haven't made elimination of our rights their personality.

If you're like others with an internet connection, you'll say something. Sometimes sensitive, sometimes not. Sometimes, you'll upbraid them angrily.

Risky Business?

There is always a bit of a fear that if we upbraid and correct people for their seemingly uncontroversial purchases and make them feel bad, they'll flip their position on our rights and join those opposed.

This isn't a fear without foundation: people disappointed, ashamed, or otherwise unhappy with being corrected will often flip to opposing the source of that discomfort instead of considering what they've been communicated.

It's not at all limited to us: every human rights movement experiences this. The minute their advocacy requires others to give up their treats, a large contingent will change from positive support (or more usually, an uninitiated semi-positive neutrality) to opposition or at least contemptuous neutrality.

Few rights endeavours have succeeded when they've played to these loose fish whose respect for rights is first-gate contingent.

At the same time, I don't have an answer to the question of whether it's better to lose your rights in the face of overwhelming mass opposition or in the face of a dedicated opposition while an immobile majority half watches.

Why Not Both?

So, in the grand scheme of things, I don't know if hounding people over these things really accomplishes very much (perhaps outside of catharsis), but at the same time, I don't know if my saying nothing at all really accomplishes anything anyway.

If I were to trust my instincts, it would be that every successful rights movement needs the fiery, the revolutionary, the calm and calculating, the strategic, the passionate, the misdirected, the visionaries, the works.

It has never been the case that rights have been won through well-timed landmark speeches alone and it has never been the case that they've been won through unconstrained and misplaced rage and violence alone.

💜

July 31, 2026