Why it Works: A Story About Transgender Pushback

My editor’s take on one well-crafted story

Every now and then I analyze a nonfiction article that impressed me, zeroing in on why it works by focusing on several of the Fundamental Elements of a Good Story. This week’s story is one I edited on Medium (the “friend link” bypasses the paywall). I encourage you to go read the story, consciously evaluate it yourself, then come back and see what you think of my take.

Headline: The Surge in Transgender Individuals Generates Huge Pushback

Subtitle: Much remains unknown, but substantial medical science shows that affirmative transgender care helps.

Lede: In 2000, substantially less than 1% of the US population identified as transgender. Any attention paid to these individuals was sporadic and rare. They were viewed as exotic and deviant.

Author: John Kruse MD, PhD

As a reader and an editor, here’s what I like about this story:

Standout Factors: Clear language, precise definitions, expert knowledge and vigorous candor.

The Story Idea: This is one of those topics that’s on a lot of minds but rarely gets such thoughtful consideration. The entire premise rests on an obvious fact—”one can’t escape hearing about transgender and nonbinary people”—that is bound to resonate regardless of individual reader perspectives, in a way that invites everyone to come and learn something.

Headline: You can read it two ways, and given the polarization of the subject matter, that’s a win-win in terms of attracting reader attention.

Subtitle: Now we get a hint of the story’s direction, including a specific bit. It suggests to readers: This isn’t just some rant. It’s a serious story backed by science.

Lede: The first sentence of this story isn’t a classic who what when where how why lede, and that’s absolutely fine. The effect—offering you one simple historical datapoint to ponder—plays off the headline perfectly and sets the stage for this story being one of serious scope. I want to know: What has happened since? And I bet many readers are making guesses in their minds.

Nutgraph: Normally I prize single-paragraph nutgraphs, and often one sentence is sufficient. But the elements of this story are wide-ranging and complex, and there is not a single, clear nutgraph that encapsulates the entire meaning and direction of the story. Instead, graphs 2 through 6 serve this role, and they do it compellingly. Each builds upon the previous, and the entire top section serves as an excellent, enticing summary of what’s to come in this longish article. Oh, and we get a partial answer to our question: What has happened since?

Outline: I love how the 2nd section (subhead “Terms have limits”) diverges to define terms that are wildly misunderstood by many, fuzzy to most. It says to the reader: OK, that was heavy; now here’s some background info we need to be clear on before we proceed, and I will hold your hand. Then the next section takes us back to 2000 to expand on the promise of the headline and the datapoint in the story’s first sentence, reminding us of the arc of this story. Subsequent sections chunk things out really well — each section focuses on a certain aspect of the overall tale. We don’t jump around, and we don’t find concepts repeated. A great outline like this one both reflects and facilitates flow.

Bottom line: The writer’s deep, rich professional knowledge of the topic, as a practicing psychiatrist, informs every aspect of the story but without making it sound pedantic or preachy. The challenge of writing about any controversial topics is to not just preach to the choir but engage a broader spectrum of readers and get them thinking. From the headline to the final word (literally, “us”) this story delivers important information on a tricky subject in a thoughtful manner.

Cheers,
Rob