Connect with us

Washington Times: Transgender People Are ‘Messed Up, Mixed Up, Insane’

Published

on

The Washington Times on Monday published an ignorant and downright offensive editorial criticizing transgender people as “messed-up,” “mixed-up,” and suggested they are insane, in response to a recent discrimination lawsuit filed against the New York City Health Department.

Questioning the validity of the terms transgender and transition by placing the words in quotes, The Washington Times’ piece, “The latest birth certificate scandal,” went on to state transgender individuals are part of a “radical agenda,” while referring to the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association as “confused medical circles.” The Times, an ultra-right wing D.C.-based broadsheet with an immovable national readership, identified members of the latter group as “shrinks” who offer “scientific (or pseudo-scientific) mumbo-jumbo.”

“The claimants want the bureaucracy to make it easier to change the sex that was recorded at birth, noting that parents fixing mistakes (typos) in listing a child’s sex only have to provide a letter from the birth hospital,” the Times editorial states, adding, “Knowing that it was a mistake in the first place, and having that fixed, is pretty important to me,” said Joann Prinzivalli, who was born Paul yet lives as a woman.

“Calling the accurate sex recorded at a birth ‘a mistake’ is the misleading yet predictable result of a creeping activist agenda quietly transforming the country.”

I decided to reach out to Joann Prinzivalli, the person The Times pointed to as someone who evidently, somehow, some way, is responsible for “a creeping activist agenda quietly transforming the country.”

Joann, a lawyer, was very generous in sharing a treasure trove of information related to transgender issues, and offered this response to me (via email) about the Times editorial. She writes,

“I wonder why the Washington TImes editors never bothered to take the time to look at the scientific studies that show that transgender people have brain structures that are the same as those of the sex not assigned, or the scientific studies that show genes that code for enzymes that explain why it is possible for an embryo’s brain to follow one sexed developmental path, while the genital tract follows the other path. My birth certificate should never have said ‘male’ in the first place. It is a scientific fact that my birth certificate is in error on that point. I have made it clear that I am asking for a correction, not a change. At the time I was born, neither the doctor nor my parents knew about the error. Based on the medical knowledge of the time, it was impossible for them to know. Now we know better.”

Indeed!

More offensive stereotypical snark from the Times editorial. “The old saying about giving an inch and losing a mile comes to mind. As Sam Berkley, born Samantha, complained in a press conference about the lawsuit, ‘I don’t feel comfortable with the government deciding whether I’m a man or not,'” state the editors, adding, “[s]trike ‘man’ and replace with ‘human’ or ‘sane’ and there’s not much of a difference.”

Really?

The piece goes on to ignorantly and falsely warn, “we’re accommodating mental illness in the name of misplaced sensitivity, inclusiveness or political correctness.”

“Misplaced sensitivity,” “inclusiveness,” and “political correctness,” all being right-wing key words for “we don’t like you.”

Not satisfied with taking a bigoted and ignorant swipe at the entire transgender community by calling them a “conflicted group,” and thus, the LGBT community at large as well, the Times editorial goes on to take a birther swipe at President Obama too, claiming the “continuing furor over President Obama’s birth certificate underscores the importance these pieces of history have for recording the truth.”

It should be noted that the only “continuing furor over President Obama’s birth certificate” comes from people who are generally ignorant — or wanting the votes of those who are.

Is this a relevant place to mention that The Washington Times reportedly is the newspaper Ronald Reagan read every day when he was president?

Michael Silverman, Executive Director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund — the group that filed the NYC discrimination lawsuit that so bothered the editors at The Washington Times — told me via an email that there is “nothing radical about an agenda for equal rights and equal treatment.” He rightly calls a birth certificate “a fundamental form of identification,” and says by “refusing to give transgender people accurate birth certificates that reflect who they are, the government subjects transgender people to harassment and discrimination in areas like employment where ID is essential to proving eligibility to work.”

Silverman says that “[p]roper ID is essential for full participation in society,” adding, that “as long as the government discriminates against transgender people by denying them accurate ID, transgender people will continue to be pushed to the margins of society.”

The Washington Times, for those unfamiliar with the ultra-right-wing rag, is extremely homophobic and transphobic. Founded and funded by Unification Church founder Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the Times has recently published editorials like, “Obama’s homosexual-Muslim conflict,” and “Obama’s homosexual America.”

(If anyone has seen Obama’s homosexual America, I’d like to know where it is. I’ve been looking everywhere! I won’t call it MIA, after he signed the bill for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal and decided to not defend DOMA in court, but, come on. “Obama’s homosexual America?” Really? I’d be married by now!)

Reverend Moon, just so you know, is most-famous for holding thousands of “mass weddings” over the past 50 years, during which he the matches tens of thousands of men and women who have never before met and marries them in a “blessing ceremony.” The largest of these was in 2009, during which Moon “married” 80,000 men and women, creating 40,000 couples.

Moon, who has spent at least a reported two billion dollars keeping the paper running since 1982, once professed, “The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God” and “The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.”

When you spend two billion dollars on an instrument spreading the “truth” of God, perhaps it would be best to actually know what truth is before you print it?

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Trump Envoy Invites Kids in Greenland to Come to America for Chocolate Chip Cookies

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s Special Envoy to Greenland, Louisiana Republican Governor Jeff Landry, touched down in Nuuk on Sunday, saying he arrived “simply to build relationships,” and to “see if there are opportunities” to expand them.

The U.S. Ambassador to Denmark, Ken Howery, arrived on Monday to take part in this week’s Future Greenland 2026 conference. Landry is also expected to attend.

President Donald Trump has suggested the U.S. should take over Greenland. The New York Times reports that negotiators from the U.S., Greenland, and Denmark, have been in talks about Greenland’s future. Greenland and Denmark have been adamant that the U.S. cannot acquire Greenland.

The vast majority of Greenlanders, who are part of the Kingdom of Denmark, have said they do not want to be acquired by the United States. Denmark has also stated Greenland’s future is not up for negotiation, and several European leaders have stressed that the United States cannot interfere with Greenland — with at least one, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, warning that if Trump were to engage in a military incursion it would mean the end of NATO.

“I would like to make a deal,” Trump told reporters in January.

“You know, the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way we’re gonna do it the hard way,” the president said.

In March, Danish public broadcaster DR, via a Google translation, reported that Trump’s remarks, when he threatened that the U.S. could acquire Greenland the easy way or the hard way, had accelerated the governments’ plans.

Denmark had formed an alliance with France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden, flew heavily armed Danish F-35 fighter jets and troops to Greenland with bombs to blow up its own runways if necessary to prevent U.S. aircraft from landing, and prepared for casualties by flying bags of blood to the autonomous territory of roughly 56,000 residents.

On Monday, according to video posted by Orla Joelsen, a native Greenlander and a prison official in Nuuk, the GOP governor spoke with some local children.

“If you come to Louisiana,” Governor Landry says in the video, “and you come to the governor’s mansion — all the chocolate chip cookies you can eat.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Obsessed With Self-Enrichment as ‘Little Man’ Pays the Price: Columnist

Published

on

President Donald Trump remains “obsessively focused” on “personal glory and enrichment” — ignoring the economic suffering of the working people he last week dismissed as the “little man,” Jeet Heer writes in The Nation.

“Donald Trump is annoyed that he can’t celebrate the massive profits oil companies are making due to the war he launched in the Middle East,” writes Heer, The Nation’s national affairs correspondent. Trump would be “exulting in the hundreds of billions of dollars produced by skyrocketing oil prices—if it weren’t for the pesky fact that it comes at the expense of ordinary Americans.”

Americans are paying roughly 40 percent more at the gas pump than they did before Trump started his war in Iran three months ago, Heer notes. But in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity last week, Trump said, “I don’t want to say we’re making a fortune, you understand that? Because if I say that, they’re going to say ‘oh, he forgets about the little man with the $4 gasoline.’”

Meanwhile, Republicans’ response “to the harm caused by Trump’s policies” is not to change course “or even to appear sympathetic about their effects,” but rather, “to express their total indifference to the suffering of the American people.”

Heer looks at a Bloomberg report from last week that revealed Trump or his financial advisors made over 3,700 trades during the first quarter of this year, “a flurry totaling tens of millions of dollars and involving major companies that have dealings with his administration.”

Trump won the White House — twice — by promoting a message of economic populism, but that has gone by the wayside. Heer writes: “allowing Trump to steal the rhetoric of economic populism” was one of “the most catastrophic mistakes” Democrats have made in the last decade.

Now, Trump is making the same messaging error Biden did — an error that cost Democrats the White House in 2024. But that error opens the door for Democrats to “reclaim economic populism” as their own message.

Citing the “apocryphal words misattributed to the French Queen Marie Antoinette: ‘Let them eat cake,’” Heer writes that Trump said: “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Why Even the MAGA Far Right Has Turned on Neil Gorsuch: Political Scientist

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s book tour was met with staunch criticism by the far-right, but underneath the anger, political scientist Daniel Ruggles writes, was a critical revelation: the conservative movement is split between hard-right MAGA nativists and mainstream constitutionalists.

Writing at The Bulwark, Ruggles notes that at his core, Justice Gorsuch — like all conservatives to varying degrees on the Roberts Supreme Court, is an originalist: he believes the constitution should be interpreted as it was understood when written.

But the MAGA hard right has not embraced originalism, and, Ruggles writes, “originalism’s slow seep into both conservative and mainstream constitutional law will not be easily undone.”

“Fundamentally, originalists accept the democratic constraints of the Constitution and believe them to be a core component of America’s political tradition,” Ruggles writes. “Postliberals and their nativist fellow travelers” — MAGA, for example — “have begun to reimagine the American state without any such constitutional guardrails.”

Gorsuch’s book tour enraged MAGA because he kept focusing on “creed.”

“The United States is a ‘creedal’ nation—that is, a nation unified by common belief in rights, liberties, and democratic institutions,” Ruggles writes.

Gorsuch explained that Americans share a “heritage,” but, Ruggles said, “it’s one of ideals, not ethnicity. Being an American requires not lineage, but belief.”

“It was a gentle rebuke of nationalism—and it drove the hard right nuts,” Ruggles wrote.

Ruggles added that the “clash over an American ‘creed’ portends something dark as well, to the degree it shows deep tensions between the extremist, illiberal right and its originalist predecessors.”

The MAGA hard right is rising, and has sought “key privileges in the Trump presidency,” Ruggles explains, while originalists have a “critical institutional advantage on the bench of the Supreme Court and other courts” that insulates them from MAGA’s populism.

“Who wins this battle,” Ruggles warns, “will fundamentally redefine America.”

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.