The Philadelphia Inquirer recently ran a horribly argued op-ed by Heritage Foundation hack Ryan T. Anderson that argued the government should be neutral in the “transgender debate.” Why? Because they wanted clicks. I submitted a letter to the editor as a response, but naturally it wasn’t published — not because it was poorly written, but because the paper apparently doesn’t want to eat crow. Here it is (the brevity is the result of the 150 word limit for letters to the editor):

Ryan Anderson dishonestly frames “the transgender debate” in his op-ed. He cites a single gay activist against the “T” in LGBT as proof the “transgender agenda” is running roughshod over everyone else, but rights don’t require unanimous consent. Denying public accommodation, advocating separate but equal policies — these are violations of rights the government protects, not “debate” topics.

The only agenda belongs to social conservatives like Anderson — many of whom are still smarting over losing on marriage. He misrepresents trans inclusive policies as giving people “unfettered access” to bathrooms when school policies like those outlined by Obama only give access to students who consistently identify with that gender.

He wants the government to be neutral because he wants these “issues” decided by people like him, people who praise conservative court rulings and anti-trans legislation like North Carolina HB2. But the government cannot be neutral when people like him aren’t.

Then today I read another hackjob op-ed in the Denver Post arguing that transgender activists “put ideology above safety.” Notably, the author (Peter Sprigg) has wonderful opinions like supporting conversion therapy (which has been thoroughly discredited), opposing LGBT rights (in any form) and arguing that allowing gays in the military would enable sexual assault against straight men, etc. He’s a hack — and the “source” for his argument (Zucker) had his clinic SHUT DOWN by the Canadian government.

Fuck newspapers that give column space to transphobic shit heads just to generate clicks and interest in the “transgender debate.” This kind of irresponsible journalism is going to lead to a transgender person dying — either because some transphobe kills them or because they commit suicide after deciding they don’t want to live in a world where people are allowed to talk like that in [what used to be] respectable newspapers.

Speech has consequences — and since the people running these newspapers aren’t part of the solution, they’re part of the problem.