Associated Press does the full monty for transgender ideology
Quin Hillyer
The Associated Press has abandoned all pretense of objectivity in its reporting on transgenderism.
My colleague Kaylee McGhee White on May 12, criticized the AP in the course of a superb analysis of the underlying issue of parental rights, but my focus is firmly and only on the AP’s biased reporting.
HOUSE PASSES BILL TO BAN TRANSGENDER ATHLETES IN WOMEN’S SPORTS
The AP story in question was headlined, quite astonishingly, “Trans minors protected from parents under Washington law.” As if parents are naturally aggressors against their children.
The journalistic sins did not stop with the headline, however. Here’s the first paragraph: “Minors seeking gender-affirming care in Washington will be protected from the intervention of estranged parents under a measure Gov. Jay Inslee signed into law Tuesday.”
Right there, the AP chooses sides, rather than adopting neutral phrasing. To opponents, the treatments afforded to those seeking to be deemed a gender opposite their biology and anatomy are not gender-affirming but gender-disturbing. And the treatments of any sort are not considered “care” but “abuse.”
A neutral phraseology, which is what the AP is supposed to provide, would read: “Minors seeking gender-transitioning support will be able to stay in shelters without parents being quickly informed…”
That neutral phraseology doesn’t fore-judge the issue in either direction. But the AP wants it fore-judged. The second paragraph says that the “conservative movement” has “attacked transgender rights.” Again, that’s choosing sides. It assumes that the demands from the Left in favor of gender transitioning are, incontrovertibly, “rights,” as if there’s no debate about it.
Likewise, throughout the article, every assumption is made against the positions of those who think minors should be protected from transitions rather than those who think minors should be able to demand it. Even then, though, the AP story gets even worse, as it openly begins arguing the case for the law in question rather than merely reporting it.
Worse still, it misstates the facts.
The article devotes multiple paragraphs to refuting the assertions of Republicans, who the article describes not as merely arguing against the bill but “railing” against it. (Note to AP: Do you ever describe Democrats as “railing?”) Then the article goes into overdrive:
“Online, some users have twisted the content of the measure to suggest it will see the state ripping children from their homes. But those claims misrepresented the legislation, which is intended to keep estranged young people housed, according to experts and the lawmaker sponsoring the bill. The bill does not address custody and would not result in the state taking children away from their homes and parents.”
Well, I am one of those who have written that the bill could easily result, indeed is designed to result, in keeping children from their own homes for longer periods of time. I stand by it. The AP’s supposed fact-check is wrong.
When a bill changes existing law, the point of the bill is in the changes. Obviously. Well, the old law required youth shelters to notify parents when a child stays at the shelter within at most 72 hours, and “preferably within 24 hours.” Only if there are “compelling reasons” not to notify the parents would the shelter instead contact the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, in order to let the department handle things from there. Compelling reasons formerly included only cases of abuse or neglect.
The new law changes that. Now it adds the following to compelling reasons, thus equating the following with abuse or neglect: “When a minor is seeking or receiving protected healthcare services. ‘Protected healthcare services’ means gender-affirming care or treatment as defined in [state law] and reproductive healthcare services [abortion].”
When the department, instead of the parent, is informed of this situation, it operates under no 72-hour timeline. Instead, it must just make a “good-faith attempt to notify the parent that a report has been received.” The law is vague as to what “good faith” means. And it doesn’t say the department must act within a set time period, or even inform the parent where the child is being held. Instead, it just requires notice that a “report” has been made that the child is staying somewhere else, with the state’s permission. And the department must “offer services designed to resolve the conflict and accomplish reunification of the family.” State bureaucrats decide what services to offer, how to offer them, and when. And parents are at the mercy of the bureaucrats to be told where their children are.
In sum, this bill does change custody rights. It keeps the child away from the custody of parents who have committed neither abuse nor neglect, until the bureaucrats decide that “reunification” is justified.
Those are the facts. The AP reported some of that language, but without the context that the custody is absolutely changed by replacing the automatic assumption of parental custody with, instead, state custody until the state decides otherwise. And it does so no longer only in the extreme situations of “abuse or neglect,” but now for times when any runaway child says he wants to be known as a different gender but doesn’t want his parents to know.
Not only does the AP go out of its way to argue in favor of the law, but it openly discredits opponents who actually cite the law to note how the default position on custody changes.
There’s still more. While the state is slow-walking parental notification and effective custody reinstatement, the children actually can be “receiving” gender-transition treatments, without the parents even knowing it. Oh, but not to worry, the AP explains: “genital surgeries and mastectomies … are rarely performed on minors.” Instead, “puberty blockers, anti-androgens that block the effects of testosterone, and hormone treatments are far more common than surgery.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Oh, is that all? So while bureaucrats are deciding when and how to tell parents even as much as where the children are sheltering, the children can get puberty blockers and hormone treatments without parental permission. These are the same children, presumably, who the state requires to get a note from parents just to bring Tylenol to school.
What the AP produced here isn’t ethical journalism. It’s one-sided, radical advocacy masquerading as news.