The Chicago Sun-Times removed a syndicated post from its website and issued a public apology today, after readers raised objections with the content of the op-ed, which originally appeared on The National Review’s website. It’s no wonder people were upset. The article, headlined “Laverne Cox Is Not a Woman,” is conservative troll Kevin D. Williamson blabbering on about trans Orange Is the New Black actress Cox’s recent Time magazine cover. In his ugly, buffoonish way, Williamson refuses to address Cox and Chelsea Manning by their preferred pronouns. It’s another dull, babyish bit of stinkery from noted stinker Williamson, and isn’t really surprising in its willful obtuseness, nor its place on National Review’s website.

But why was it syndicated by the Sun-Times? BuzzFeed has posted a statement from the paper’s editorial editor (he edits the editorials) Tom McNamee, who says that Williamson’s piece “initially struck as provocative.” Of course when they realized that it was weakly argued nonsense, and when people began complaining, they saw the error of their ways, but they still posted it. McNamee’s statement also said that the paper strives “to present a range of views on an issue, not only those views we may agree with, but also those we don’t agree with,” which of course makes sense. Not everyone at The New York Times agrees with Ross Douthat or Thomas Friedman, and that’s the point of running op-eds.

The problem is, an article like Williamson’s should have immediately struck the professionals at the Sun-Times as, yes, egregiously offensive, but more importantly as poorly argued and guided by a mostly unstated moral agenda that has nothing to do with psychology, biology, or any other kind of science. And yet they didn’t. Which, sadly, happens all too frequently when the topic at hand is gender identity or sexuality.

Remember when widely reviled gay writer Brandon Ambrosino, a young conservative who works as a not terribly effective apologist for those who want to curtail gay rights, was hired by Ezra Klein’s news and information Web site Vox? There was, understandably, some outrage. Not only because Ambrosino’s poorly crafted writing is damaging to a worthwhile cause, but because if Vox wanted to include a conservative or otherwise dissenting gay voice in its editorial roster, there are plenty of worthwhile writers who could do just that. And yet Ambrosino, with his highly shareable but badly developed contrarian positions, was hired instead. Because, it would seem, the vetting process wasn’t all that rigorous. And because Ambrosino’s garbage has been published all over by outlets looking to be fair to “all sides of the issue.”

Why would that be? Well, it often feels as though when it’s “gay stuff,” or in today’s case “transgender stuff,” that’s being talked about, editors who have no personal stake in those issues tend to not give the particular nuances of the various arguments much consideration. It’s only when people who are paying closer attention to what’s actually being said (usually they’re the people being written about in some way) start complaining that editors who seemed to have just casually said, “Eh, sure, put the gay/transgender/etc. thing up!” realize that these issues are not exactly as neatly two-sided as they’d like to have believed.

And these same editors frequently seem to think that there is a worthwhile argument to be had when there isn’t. Why would the Sun-Times see the headline “Laverne Cox Is Not a Woman” and then read even two paragraphs of Williamson’s piece and think, “Hm, yes, this seems like a measured take on these issues”? Any genuine consideration of the post’s content probably would have led to a decision not to syndicate the piece in the first place. That is, if they really cared in the first place. This ugly gaffe may have been a simple matter of an editor seeing that punchy headline and knowing it would pop, and so it was published, regardless of what those faraway people on the fringe who are actually being addressed in the piece might think about it.

That you likely wouldn’t see the Sun-Times or many other publications run something with the same kind of grabby, dumb bluntness about another minority group is, of course, a sign that the transgender cause still has lots of ground to gain. One way to see that achieved would be for editors like those at the Sun-Times to treat the subject matter with the measured respect it deserves, and that they presumably extend to many other arenas. (Getting a smart take on transgender issues is just as important as getting a smart take on foreign policy!) As an added benefit, that would save all of us the trouble of having to grapple with so many unnecessary Internet outrages every day. Aren’t we all tired of that?