Interesting article, and it rings on a theme that has been bothering me lately, too.
It is wonderful to hear you say that, as transgender, you believe you cannot be neutral when writing about the topic. This is an acknowledgement of something your readers would already believe to be true, but saying it gives your writing an integrity: this is who I am, and it impacts the way I see and feel about the world. It means your writing on the topic can be more clearly understood and interpreted.
(Minor point here: don’t suppose that “people of color” cannot “give credence to both sides of a dispute with a white supremacist” — the point above was your call to make, but this example is not.)
But onto my point: when you start talking about sharing stories of the marginalised, to represent cross-sections of communities, it feels as if those that oppose your views don’t get a chance here. White supremacy is the enemy in this article, but are there not those who might reflect those views because they are marginalized, forgotten, at risk, or suffering? It is those stories I want to read, I want to understand them, I want to know why we are at this crisis. And the job of the ‘neutral’ journalist is to recognise those stories and tell them as well, to encourage as much understanding of each other as possible, and close divides rather than pick (due to your beliefs) and choose whose it more legitimate to tell.
I understand that right now, it feels like a time to reject neutrality and speak support for those who are currently suffering (and more soon will be) as American society is rapidly changing. It feels like a time to define who you are against your ‘enemy’. But this is how wars are waged — by creating the caricature of ‘the other’ — someone different, less moral, evil. I believe that the media and journalists can help combat this, and help keep us human.