Previous: If You Were Gonna Commit a Murder
We have, until now, said simply “Wired Mag”— for the sake of convenience, &— in an overabundance of kindness— not wanting to call out Wired’s specific journalist. But this latest instance of him failing to listen to his trans subjects— this latest instance of him casting them in the worst possible light— has exhausted our kindness. Evan Ratliff is the veteran reporter behind Wired’s execrable zcoverage (Ziz coverage).
Evan, why? Why would you read the anti-trans news reports that Jamie has diligently archived on their tumblr, pooh-pooh their legitimate fears, & write hundreds of words framing them as delulu & unhinged? Speaking of Jamie’s tumblr, Evan, there is another way that you have undermined their public image— & which we pray will not influence the outcome of their rapidly-approaching trial.
We know, Evan, that you have read Jamie’s heart-rending descriptions of their own severe childhood abuse; we know bc you quote from the posts. Yet you, Evan, have chosen to omit almost all of the abuses which these posts detail— esp. the gravest allegations.
You have chosen to omit the threats around food; the threats of physical violence & of institutionalization; you have chosen to omit the threats of what would happen to Jamie in foster care (you have further omitted to mention that Jamie is adopted— which adds even more painful weight to this latter threat.)
You have failed, Evan, to mention Jamie’s clear & compelling reasons for not speaking out abt these horrors sooner.
In so doing, you have again framed Jamie as histrionic & delulu— at best! At worst, Evan, your writing has heavily implied that Jamie could be making aaaall of this up— perhaps as an "alibi/reason for" their future (alleged) violence!
You, Evan, have zeroed in on Aunt Rosanne’s disbelief of Jamie— & have called this “irreconcilable” w/ Jamie’s own childhood memories. To this end, you have included an email from Aunt R. to Jamie, in which Aunt R. reveals that she has read Jamie’s tumblr, & that it has hurt her feelings. She writes:
I take issue with one of your posts where you said I knew about abuse but preferred to do nothing. That was a huge surprise to me. I felt that you stabbed me in the back with that comment.
Let’s pause here, Evan, take off our victim-blaming hats, & put on our speculation hats. Why might Aunt R. *not* remember Jamie’s childhood the way that Jamie remembers Jamie’s childhood?
Aunt R. may have:
a) Known, done nothing, & is now in denial or reinterpreting her past inaction as "not knowing"
b) Gotten told, downplayed it, & now remembers a less-severe version of events
c) Gotten told *some things* & not recognized a pattern of abuse. Kid-Jamie may also not have had the language to explain the situation directly
d) Not gotten told, be the abuse wasn't real- this is actually the *least* likely option, despite what abusers & their enablers will have you believe!
...As we noted in pt. 32: "Aunt Rosanne's enabling reaction is, sadly, common, esp. for marginalized ppl who try to disclose abuse: finding someone willing to stand up for you can be a devastating process."
Wow, good thing the press is here to make a "devastating process" easier on survivors!
Why, Evan, you would not even mention the *possibility* of Aunt R.'s conscious or unconscious enablement— why you would not give Aunt R.'s version of events the same eagle-eyed skepticism which you give Jamie's version of events— why you would, in fact, play the role an enabler yourself- is beyond us.
You, Evan, have played the role of an enabler in one more critical way. By this we mean that your one (1) interview source for Jamie’s past- the past they describe so vividly on their tumblr- is none other than
Yes, Evan: your one (1) interview source on Jamie's past hadn't believed that Jamie’s abuse was real. Aunt Rosanne didn't believe Jamie then- and, as we quickly learn thru your reporting, Evan, Aunt R. doesn't believe Jamie now.
The critical question is, Evan: do we believe Aunt R.?
For our part, we do not believe Aunt R.— bc she, in describing Jamie’s harrowing experiences chez Alice, says only:
I had spoken with [them] while [they were] out in California, and [they were] very happy.
Aunt R., we encourage you to read pt. 30 of Strange New Vegan Death Cult Murders— tho you may wish to do so sitting down. Jamie was not “very happy”; Jamie was being abused so horribly that it gave us nightmares just writing abt it.
Evan, we do not trust Aunt R. to evaluate Jamie's inner life, nor do we trust her to evaluate abuse writ large.—But you, Evan: you knew abt Alice’s abuse. You knew about it from Ziz’s blog, which you, famously, have printed out & read multiple times in its entirety. You read Ziz’s account, omitted it, & called Alice merely “a controversial figure”.
We must ask again, Evan: why do you insist on omitting the written testimony of your trans subjects?
We fear, Evan, that this carries more than a whiff of the SOTTV*- in that it characterizes your subjects as delulu/ deranged; &, in the case of Jamie, sneaky/sinister— if indeed they are concocting a backstory to explain future (alleged) violence.
Go to your room, Evan— go to your room & think long & hard abt what you’ve done— & don’t come out until we say so!
*****