The New York Times faced a wave of backlash for a story that referred to biological females as “non-transgender women.”
The story in question, titled “How a Women’s College Volleyball Team Became the Center of the Transgender Athlete Debate,” explored the explosion of protests and forfeitures surrounding San Jose State University and the school’s star player — a trans-identifying male.
When addressing the issue of eligibility for trans-identifying players under the NCAA’s rules, the NYT published the following:
On its website, the N.C.A.A. says trans volleyball players are eligible to play if their testosterone level is less than 10 nanomoles per liter — that’s at least four times more than what many experts say is the top of the range for non-transgender women, and in the typical range for adult men.
As the article itself notes, the normal testosterone level for an adult male — which would then decrease with age — is 10-35 nanomoles per liter. And that alone could be cause for argument that a trans-identifying player still has a biological advantage over female players.
But after being referred to as “cis” women, “birthing persons,” and “menstruators,” it was the NYT’s phrasing that got the attention of their critics.
“Hey @nytimes. Don’t call us ‘non-transgender women.’ Just stop it. Stop all the offensive terms for us: birthing parent; uterus haver; menstruator; vaginal presenting (from the Olympus spa hearing). We are WOMEN!” Women Are Real posted via X.
Hey @nytimes
Don’t call us ‘non-transgender women.’
Just stop it
Stop all the offensive terms for us
❌birthing parent
❌uterus haver
❌menstruator
❌vaginal presenting (from the Olympus spa hearing)We are WOMEN! pic.twitter.com/YpMxDXm5cD
— WomenAreReal (@WomenAreReals) November 29, 2024
“NYT — you stink. We are women, not NOT TRANSGENDER WOMEN. Just WOMEN will do in the future,” tennis legend Martina Navratilova added.
NYT- you stink. We are women, not NOT TRANSGENDER WOMEN. Just WOMEN will do in the future. https://t.co/xJZNJvS6O1
— Martina Navratilova (@Martina) November 29, 2024
“WOW — A NEW LOW FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES. Referring to Women now as ‘Non-Transgender Women.’ This othering is typical of a liberal rag like this. Another once proud publication has been completely captured by the woke ideology,” another posted.
WOW 🚨 A NEW LOW FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES
Referring to Women now as “Non-Transgender Women”
– This othering is typical of a liberal rag like this
– Another once proud publication has been completely captured by the woke ideology@JulietMacur what were you thinking? pic.twitter.com/jXdSBe9BOQ— Basil the Great (@Basil_TGMD) November 29, 2024
