I've written a few long Medium stories about Pamela Paul's anti-trans NYT opinions since 2022. I canceled my NYT subscription because of her.

Even though I know generally where she stands — without reading this particular NYT column, I wonder how she pivots from a thesis like "Trump ran anti-trans ads because they worked" to one like "the fault lies with doctors for affirming children's genders."

I imagine she's just saying she agrees with the Republicans on being anti-trans and that lots of voters apparently do too.

What's her deal here? Did she conclude that trans people should have anticipated this anti-trans presidential campaign and stopped existing in 2023 before Trump had a chance to run these ads against us? Or did she conclude that Trump was correct to run the ads to pressure trans people to stop existing in the future, even though running the ads resulted in his victory which she's otherwise unhappy about, in a "well, you gotta hand it to Trump" kind of way?

I don't have an NYT subscription & I just published a story saying I don't want to read these trans-related election postmortems :) I'd rather listen to your opinion of what the postmortem said, please!