This was a tough read. In a supposedly affirming article, why would you mention the 88% detransition success rate multiple times when you’re going to bury the fact that the study has methodological flaws at the very bottom of the article in tiny footnotes?
Do trans people not face enough systemic barriers?
Since the publication of this piece in 2016, methodological flaws have been found in Singh’s study and other desistance research, and recent studies suggest that detransition rates are very low.
Yep, and based on this footnote it seems the opposite may be true. This doesn’t seem to be referencing limitations of the study, but rather that the whole study is called into question.
Maybe I read too much into it, but I was also sensing a subtext of “both sides” throughout the article regarding transgender people/allies and the anti-trans crowd.
Odd article. Not sure I found it edifying or helpful.
Sometimes in the effort of making a topic palatable, it’s stripped of its sprit completely.
If this was published by The Sun or something I’d understand as a positive - at least it’s an article not bent on demonization and at least advances a nuanced and humanized view -, but from the Walrus… this level of two-sidedness is probably in the lower end of what the readership expects already?
Still, I thought it was insightful. I still don’t read as many feature-length trans testimonial/articles like this as I probably should.
This was a tough read. In a supposedly affirming article, why would you mention the 88% detransition success rate multiple times when you’re going to bury the fact that the study has methodological flaws at the very bottom of the article in tiny footnotes?
Do trans people not face enough systemic barriers?
Yep, and based on this footnote it seems the opposite may be true. This doesn’t seem to be referencing limitations of the study, but rather that the whole study is called into question.
Maybe I read too much into it, but I was also sensing a subtext of “both sides” throughout the article regarding transgender people/allies and the anti-trans crowd.
Odd article. Not sure I found it edifying or helpful.
Sometimes in the effort of making a topic palatable, it’s stripped of its sprit completely.
If this was published by The Sun or something I’d understand as a positive - at least it’s an article not bent on demonization and at least advances a nuanced and humanized view -, but from the Walrus… this level of two-sidedness is probably in the lower end of what the readership expects already?
Still, I thought it was insightful. I still don’t read as many feature-length trans testimonial/articles like this as I probably should.
I agree. Important conversations, strange format choice. I do expect better of the Walrus.