Could I suggest to journalists based in North America that when they write a piece on UK trans healthcare, they talk to trans people in the UK campaigning on trans healthcare?

The problem is not merely abstracting the material specificities of trans healthcare into generalisable statements about the politics of gender indeterminacy, it is making that abstraction through a frame that assumes that everywhere works like the United States.

This also applies to tweets, frankly.

The relative weakness of trans social movements in the UK means that, while we are more or less obliged to follow and understand what is happening in the US, even the most radical US writers and activists are able to completely ignore the specifics of the rest of the Anglosphere.

For example, Vivian Namaste's (excellent!) "Sex Change, Social Change" has a chapter rightly attacking a US activist focus on expanding insurance coverage to include trans people, arguing that instead trans people should be campaigning for state healthcare...

...without any analysis of where the state has a monopoly on trans health, i.e. the UK, where that monopoly in fact regulates and discriminates in trans health access, especially along lines of race, disability and poverty, in the same way as the US's capitalist insurance system.

Similarly, here's an introduction in Hil Malatino's (excellent!) "Trans Care" which never explicitly acknowledges that this analyses a specifically US regulatory context, and so that the general analysis is similarly limited.

UK writers cannot make such elisions, because they have to assume a US readership, whereas US writers can safely ignore the UK readership. This is a minor facet of US cultural imperialism -- which of course the UK has its own version of.

Similarly, the vast majority of US articles on Bell v Tavistock & the fallout use "English", "British", "UK" and "England" more or less interchangeably, with nary a fact-checker or sub-ed to introduce even a minor explanatory clause that the judgement does not apply in Scotland.

As a result, we have a situation where the UK operates as the terf boogeyman for US trans people (and indeed we are Rainy Transphobe Island) but no actual understanding of our situation, or material solidarity, is offered.

So, I found the entire minor discourse around the New Yorker piece completely irrelevant -- the piece itself, all the tweets about the piece -- because you were all talking in abstractions about trans health and total ignroance of the specifics of the UK trans health crisis.

The UK's trans health crisis is not fodder for US academics and journalists to make abstract gender theories about. The UK's mass-mainstreaming of organised transphobia is not a platform on which you can perform intellectually glittering takedowns of minor philosophers.

Nor is the situation of trans folk in the UK merely a scare story for you, especially when it's funded and driven by US far right and evangelical money. We are in perilous crisis and we need direct material support. Maybe that could start with actually talking to UK trans folk.