This term doesn't even provide clarity because it's not used at all outside of the NYT. It introduces confusion by changing the term used to describe care 4 years into a moral panic about this care.

It's pretty obvious this is an attempt to appear neutral between the two sides but such fake neutrality only aids the oppressor here. The overwhelming force of the federal government being brought to bear on less than 1% of the population. It's a campaign of eradication and the NYT has chosen a side

For instance, Kim Petras transitioned as a kid. She's a Grammy-winning pop star. She was able to pursue that dream *because* she transitioned young and wasn't forced to go through a testosterone-driven puberty. If she had, her voice would be completely different. She'd look completely different.

As I wrote today: www.readtpa.com/p/watch-rep-...

The "trans women are hulking men with deep voices and hairy knuckles" or whatever narrative they want the public to associate with us doesn't hold up if the public starts to see trans people who are conventionally attractive/not visibly trans when they think "trans person."

This is what NYT and particularly Azeen Ghorayshi do. They lie by omission by highlighting particular things that support bans and care while omitting crucial context and contradicting evidence. When challenged, they'll resort to Mott and Bailey tactics and say, well it's true!

They never mention that key figures driving these bans are all connected to a global far right and reactionary movement to roll back gender rights. SEGM is the respectable face of this movement they use to undermine access to care. SEGM members have driven the bans on GAC in Europe and the US.