Menu Menu

New York Times contributors protest biased trans coverage

In the last eight months, it’s estimated that The New York Times has published over 13,945 words of front-page coverage debating medical care for trans children.

Big media loves a moral panic, but it’s a little embarrassing to see it from the Times, as was echoed by an open letter from over 1,200 contributors to the paper last month – among them Cynthia Nixon, Chelsea Manning and Roxanne Gay.

The letter’s main point is that uneven and weighted coverage of a topic in this way goes against the editorial standards which the Times is so depended upon to uphold.

The letter’s signatories complained of an ‘eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language,’ in the papers’ coverage of trans issues. One article uses the disease-associated term ‘patient zero’ to refer to a young transgender person seeking gender-affirmative care.

Another piece about students changing their gender identity without their parents’ knowledge fails to mention how the legal strategy it covers is one pursued by anti-trans hate groups.

The letter points back to the parallels between the Times’ output in the 60s and 70s, which gave homophobic fears disproportionate cover space and featured doctors claiming homosexuality was a disease which could be cured.

The Times also failed to put the AIDs epidemic on the cover until 1983 (when 500+ patients had already died), and was long considered a hostile workplace for queer people.

However, what is most suspect about the Times’ coverage of trans children is not what’s written – it’s the sheer volume of coverage.

Why are trans children being fixated on more than climate change obstruction, when puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender-affirmation surgery have been standard forms of medical care for decades?

Trans pride 2022
Credit: Eerie, London Pride 2022

The letter has been updated twice since it went out, first to protest the Times’ indirect response, which framed complaints as rooted in activism, not editorial standards.

The most recent update, from only a couple weeks ago, notes that the letter has now been signed by over 1,200 Times contributors and over 34,000 media workers and Times readers, and asks again for real engagement with its critiques.

In the meantime, the New York Times has been internally chastising employees for signing, but shows no other plans to respond.

Accessibility