That seems like an argument for not ignoring the matter in media that wishes to avoid honing in on the sensitive issue. Now instead of reading an article that integrates but doesn't centre the trans issue, I have read one that doesn't mention it, which I now feel to be dishonest, and one which centres the trans issue above all else, which I view to be biased, but not dishonest. So well done to the authors of the OP, now I can't help but be convinced the trans factor is far more important than I might have otherwise.
Myopic focus is itself a lie of omission (of the larger context), so they're both dishonest. It seems like you're trying to obtain some agency by sorting through political trash, but the best you can get from that is trash. Never wrestle with a pig and all that.
Yeah, I agree. I think my perception of the second article was coloured by prior knowledge I had from the first, because on review, it is rather myopic too, it doesn't give useful context that was in the first. That said, I do find its myopia less sinister because I am inclined to believe that "rationalism", while I'm quite negative on it, and it probably contributes to these people's superiority complexes, is less likely the root cause than things which are.... I'm trying to be delicate here.... more sensical in light of the trans angle.
I disagree that you can't get anything useful out of trash though. Media literacy requires reading between the lines of what is written by multiple people with differing perspectives on a matter and sorting the wheat from the chaff. It's primarily trash, almost entirely trash, there is no choice but to go dumpster diving, or throw your hands up in despair and decide you're just not going to bother at all. The latter option is tenable in and of itself, but when I observe it in practice from people around me, it usually equates in practice to just lazily applying your prior biases to anything you hear about and being an obnoxious and uninteresting conversational partner.
