Rabbit Holes

Gender identity and The New York Times

Rabbit holes

For Alice, the rabbit hole she falls into, in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, is full of absurdity. That is how people discussing controversial topics currently use the phrase to describe their opponents’ beliefs. “Rabbit hole” signals a crazy place, it conveys ridicule for the views you are describing. It’s fine for activists and campaigners to use it that way – after all, they are promoting a particular viewpoint and may well think the opposite view is hogwash. When journalists in a news medium that advertises its commitment to truth use this phrase, however, it shows they are wedded to an ideology instead of impartiality.

Let’s look at a recent example. In the podcast “The Daily,” produced by the New York Times, Rachel Abrams hosted an edition on Wednesday November 13th covering Elon Musk’s decision to move into politics. She asks her colleague Kirsten Grind to explain Musk’s transformation into a close associate of Donald Trump.

Grind tells a few stories by way of explanation.

In 2020, the Covid restrictions introduced by Gavin Newsom in California had a major impact on Musk’s factories. They enraged him and he moved his factories out of the state. In describing this incident, Grind’s language is objective and communicative.

In 2021, Biden held an electrical vehicle summit to which he invited other major car manufacturers but left Musk out. This snub sowed a long-term grievance that Musk has not let go. It “set him on his political journey”, says Grind. Again, her language appears carefully chosen and journalistic.

She then describes Musk’s purchase of Twitter in 2022, which he said was to create a free speech platform for everyone, since Trump and many conservative voices had been silenced there. This section too is described in impartial terms.

Then Grind says “And around this time we see a shift in what he posts on Twitter, now X: it begins to focus on what he calls the ‘woke mind virus’ ... for example, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion measures, transgender rights, pronoun use: all of that seems to be angering Elon Musk significantly and he starts posting about it more and more.”

At this point, we also see a shift in Kirsten Grind’s language. She clearly finds Musk’s position on these issues hateful. She abandons her journalistic approach and becomes an activist.

We hear in the background a brief snippet of Musk saying: “So, it’s very possible for adults to manipulate children who are having a natural identity crisis into believing that they are the wrong gender –“ before Kirsten says: “And I want to bring up this other thing that to me really shows how far down this rabbit hole he had gone.”

Ah. Rabbit hole: this flags that we are about to hear something ridiculous and highly objectionable.

Grind: “It’s that his daughter Vivian, who is one of his older children, had come out as transgender... Musk claimed in an interview that he was tricked into signing these medical forms for Vivian and allowing her to do her transition when she was sixteen. .. that he had not been aware of this basically.... He said in this interview that she had been killed by the woke mind virus.” [We hear a snippet from the interview in which Musk says “I vowed to destroy the Woke Mind Virus after that].... “The whole incident really showed how his thinking has changed and been radicalized these past few years.”

Grind goes on to give another example: Musk’s view of immigration, which is that the Democratic Party is encouraging illegal immigration to get a majority and win elections.

Abrams breaks in to say “So he’s just espousing this conspiratorial rhetoric right out in the open, on his own platform!”

Grind agrees. “That’s right. It’s really this ideology that is so different from what you saw from him even just a couple of years earlier.”

Abrams says: “So all that helps me understand how by 2024 Musk is increasingly aligned with right-wing ideology.”

All that.

Let’s have a closer look at the story of Musk’s trans child:

Elon Musk has several children. One of his sons, Xavier, decided to “transition” at age sixteen, and adopted the name “Vivian.” Musk says he was confused and did not understand the background at the time. He does not accept the “transition” and the two are estranged. Clearly, Musk’s assertion that his son is “dead” and that he was “killed by the woke mind virus” is pretty extreme and will sound offensive to some people. It would be perfectly legitimate to point that out. Musk relates it to the term “deadnaming” ­-- which is using the name “Xavier” that his son was given at birth. Vivian is certainly not dead and has reacted in scorn to his father’s statements. Such an event is bound to be traumatic in any family. A careful journalist would describe Musk’s response with greater distance. But Grind paints Musk as the villain of the piece. She refers to Vivian as Musk’s “daughter” and uses the pronoun “she” repeatedly to signal her allegiance to gender identity politics and her contempt for Musk’s view. Importantly, this contempt clearly extends to any listeners who object to the “transitioning” of minors and “preferred pronouns” and who insist that it is impossible to change sex. There is no nuanced discussion of the issue. Or acknowledgment that diverse views exist – merely disdain and rigid adherence to activist rhetoric.

The listener understands the message: “If you, listener, do not accept that Musk has a daughter who must be referred to as ‘she,’ you are a hateful bigot and you do not belong here. This podcast is not for people like you.”    

Kirsten Grind describes herself as an investigative reporter. Her undisguised bias against gender critical ideas makes me question the veracity of the other stories she tells. She has not acquired the discipline of taming her strong beliefs in the interests of impartial journalism.

And when Rachel Abrams says, after Grind’s stories: “So all that helps me understand how by 2024 Musk is increasingly aligned with right-wing ideology” – she is putting all these items in the same basket of deplorables: objecting to strict Covid restrictions, seeking to get rid of the “woke mind virus,” Musk’s refusal to accept that his son has now become his daughter, highlighting the social contagion that promotes these transformations, and the view that Democrats are enabling illegal immigration to win elections.

There is no attempt at nuance or impartiality here. No attempt to draw distinctions. It’s all bundled together as “right-wing ideology.”

The New York Times says: “We seek the truth and help people understand the world.” It pledges “to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.”

On matters of gender identity, it is falling short – or rather, it has fallen down a rabbit hole.