Letter to the Editor: Criticism of TPUSA Deserves Accuracy, Not Caricature

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the MSU Exponent, its editorial staff, advisers, or Montana State University.

Author: Cale Thatcher Vice President, MSU TPUSA

Aster Rapkoch’s recent opinion piece, “Message From the Front Lines of the Culture

War: TPUSA’s Recent Event Was Problematic,” raises important questions about how

controversial political events are covered at MSU. As vice president of MSU’s Turning Point

USA chapter, I believe the article falls short in its characterization of our organization, its

treatment of scientific research and its portrayal of Chloe Cole’s personal experiences and

religious beliefs. Students do not need to agree with TPUSA or Cole, but criticism should

engage seriously with their arguments and represent the facts accurately.

Describing TPUSA and its members as engaging in “far-right activism” before

meaningfully discussing our event sets a hostile tone from the outset. Students are entitled to

disagree with our political beliefs. However, criticizing our positions is different from applying

incorrect and extreme ideological labels that encourage readers to dismiss us before

considering our arguments. We should be able to disagree without automatically treating one

another as extremists.

The article’s use of scientific research is another major concern. The study Rapkoch

cites, “Regret after Gender-affirmation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of

Prevalence,” examines reported regret following transgender surgeries. It does not

independently establish the long-term benefits and risks of every form of treatment for minors,

nor does it settle debates surrounding puberty blockers, hormone therapy or the appropriate

age for medical intervention. These are distinct questions requiring evidence specific to each

patient population.

This distinction matters because Cole’s testimony concerns the consequences of

medical treatment she received as a minor. Although the study provides relevant evidence

about reported surgical regret, its findings cannot settle every question about long-term

outcomes, particularly for minors, when the research primarily concerns adults. Nor does it

independently establish the effectiveness of gender-dysphoria treatment or determine the

appropriate age for intervention. A study should be represented within the limits of what it

actually examines, not treated as the final word on a broader debate.

The article’s treatment of Cole’s personal experiences is equally troubling. Rapkoch

relies on Wikipedia when discussing Cole’s conversion to Christianity, then presents an account

that reduces a deeply personal experience to a story about a drug-induced hallucination. Cole

has described struggling with depression and drug use before turning to Christianity. If the

author wishes to challenge her account, they should distinguish Cole’s testimony from their own

interpretation of it. A Wikipedia summary is not a substitute for carefully examining the person’s

own account and the context surrounding it.

The article also questions how Cole received gender-transition treatment between ages

13 and 16 while her parents resisted it. Cole has described a treatment process that unfolded

over time, including circumstances in which her parents were not fully aware of what was

happening. Readers deserve an accurate account of those circumstances, even if they

ultimately reject her conclusions. Regardless of one’s position on surgery for minors, describing

someone’s account of medical experiences as a “Frankenstein knockoff” is a remarkably

dismissive way to address something that person considers deeply traumatic. Disagreement

does not require turning another person’s suffering into a punchline.

The article’s discussion of Christianity presents a similar problem. Rapkoch interviews

two students, one studying physics and another studying art education, about Christian beliefs.

Both are entitled to express their views, but their academic majors alone establish neither

theological expertise nor a lack of it. The article does not establish whether either has studied

Christian doctrine, yet their personal interpretations are used to challenge Cole’s religious

message. Christianity has a two thousand year intellectual and theological tradition. An article

challenging its claims would be stronger if it engaged with that tradition or consulted someone

qualified to explain it. If you are going to challenge a religion, at least challenge what it actually

teaches.

Throughout the event, Cole responded respectfully to audience members, including

those who disagreed with her. Students were free to question her arguments and draw their own

conclusions. That kind of exchange is precisely what a university should encourage.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether students agree with TPUSA. Criticism of our

organization, our event and Cole’s views is entirely fair game. I would not ask for an article to

be removed simply because I disagree with it and I defend that same right for those who

criticize us. But disagreement does not excuse overstating research, substituting personal

testimony or challenging religious beliefs without seriously engaging with what they teach.

MSU should be a place where controversial ideas are examined openly and rigorously.

That requires more than assigning labels or dismissing opposing views. It requires engaging

with evidence, representing arguments fairly, and allowing readers to reach their own

conclusions. The writers of the Exponent should uphold those standards, especially when

covering issues on which students profoundly disagree.