If you scroll through the author’s twitter feed for a while, you will find that it was not just a random isolated news story, but that she shares critical stuff about trans people as a substantial part of her feed, many orders of magnitude more than the proportion of newsworthy stuff that trans people engage in.
You can find a bunch of critical stuff about pretty much anything if you create a feed that is there specifically to collect it. But this is, by definition, not a representative sampling; it doesn’t show that the media, in general, are anti-trans, much less that there is a “massive media apparatus currently laser-focused on decrying” trans people.
(And newsworthy stuff that people don’t like is still newsworthy stuff.)
I don’t think “there is a massive media apparatus” implies a claim about all of the media, rather it is making an existence claim about fairly large bulk of media. Even if it is tiny as a fraction of the full media, there could still be thousands or tens of thousands of people having a core priority of decrying trans people in the media, and many more collaborating weakly, such as by supporting general conservative infrastructure.
You can find a bunch of critical stuff about pretty much anything if you create a feed that is there specifically to collect it. But this is, by definition, not a representative sampling; it doesn’t show that the media, in general, are anti-trans, much less that there is a “massive media apparatus currently laser-focused on decrying” trans people.
(And newsworthy stuff that people don’t like is still newsworthy stuff.)
I don’t think “there is a massive media apparatus” implies a claim about all of the media, rather it is making an existence claim about fairly large bulk of media. Even if it is tiny as a fraction of the full media, there could still be thousands or tens of thousands of people having a core priority of decrying trans people in the media, and many more collaborating weakly, such as by supporting general conservative infrastructure.