When it comes to LGBTQ+ rights, The New York Times likes to position itself as a neutral observer, balanced, measured, and reasonable. But for transgender people and our allies, the view from the other side of the byline tells a different story. One of harm. One of erasure. And one of complicity.
In the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that gutted access to gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, the Times was cited by the conservative majority not once, not twice, but seven separate times. That level of influence doesn’t come from objective reporting. It comes from months and years of editorial decisions that have consistently undermined trans lives under the guise of journalistic integrity.
Even more disturbing, within 24 hours of the ruling, the Times published multiple new articles that echoed similar narratives: suggesting the movement for trans rights has overreached, spotlighting so-called “scientific uncertainty,” and focusing on the supposed political costs of supporting trans people. The result? A paper that helped shape the justification for the ruling is now helping shape the aftermath, and not in ways that protect or uplift those affected.
The Times Didn’t Just Report on the Ruling. It Helped Build It.
In the majority opinion and concurrences in United States v. Skrmetti, several justices leaned heavily on past Times reporting to bolster arguments in favor of stripping healthcare rights from trans youth.
One op-ed they leaned on was written by Pamela Paul in 2024, a piece so riddled with misleading claims that it became one of the most criticized editorials of the year. Paul accused trans activists of silencing “reasonable debate,” recycled long-debunked statistics about detransition rates, and promoted a therapist whose practices, contrary to Paul’s framing, had come under scrutiny for allegedly recommending physically harmful “treatments” for gender dysphoria.
Justice Thomas quoted this op-ed in his concurring opinion. That isn’t just a footnote; it’s a direct example of how flawed journalism can influence legal precedent.
Meanwhile, another article by Times science reporter Azeen Ghorayshi offered a sympathetic platform to Jamie Reed, a former clinic worker who claimed serious misconduct at a Missouri youth gender center. Reed’s accusations made national headlines but were later found to contain several inaccuracies, including the misattribution of a serious medical event to puberty blockers, when in fact, the issue stemmed from an unrelated COVID medication.
Still, Justice Alito referenced that article in defending the idea that gender-affirming care is dangerous.
From “Balanced” to Biased: The Editorial Trend Accelerating Harm
The real problem isn’t just what the Times has published. It’s what it keeps choosing to prioritize.
In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, the paper doubled down. One analysis framed the Supreme Court decision as a predictable reaction to a movement that had “alienated” voters by pushing unfamiliar ideas about gender. Another piece warned of the “challenges” of self-identification and questioned whether the trans rights movement had become too “ideological.”
What gets buried under this editorial framing are the facts:
- Major medical associations continue to support gender-affirming care as essential and evidence-based.
- European countries often cited by critics, like France, Germany, and Austria, have updated their guidelines to reflect continued support for youth care.
- A Republican-led panel in Utah recently concluded that such care is crucial for transgender youth, an outcome the Times has yet to highlight.
Instead, the Times repeatedly centers voices that call for compromise and caution, subtly implying that the solution to the wave of anti-trans laws is for trans people to be quieter, gentler, and more accommodating to those who fear us.
A Pattern Repeating Itself
This editorial stance is not an isolated failure; it reflects a broader, historical pattern at the Times.
The institution’s track record on civil rights has often been one of dragging its heels. In past decades, it gave sympathetic coverage to segregationists during desegregation. It framed labor unions as radicals. It wavered on same-sex marriage, treating equal rights as a subject for endless debate. And when women fought for the right to vote, the Times was more interested in the supposed social disruption than in the justice of the cause.
Today, the same approach is being repackaged and applied to trans people.
It’s the old habit of treating oppression as a conversation starter.
Selective Amplification: Who Gets to Speak for Us?
One of the most troubling aspects of The New York Times’ coverage of transgender issues is not just who gets left out, but who gets elevated.
There’s no shortage of trans journalists, parents, doctors, and youth with firsthand knowledge and lived experience. These are the people most impacted by the backlash, most familiar with the stakes, and most equipped to speak to the realities of transition and care. Yet again and again, these voices are left in the margins, if they appear at all.
In their place, the Times often turns to so-called “reasonable” or “moderate” figures, people who may be part of the trans community or adjacent to it, but whose perspectives echo the talking points of the anti-trans movement in more palatable packaging.
Take Brianna Wu, a former congressional candidate frequently quoted by media outlets as a voice of trans reason. In a June 19 New York Times newsletter, she responded to the Supreme Court ruling with this line:
“I think the movement got greedy… Instead of being satisfied with progress, we had to push for changes that middle America wasn’t ready for.”
It’s a statement that hands our opponents exactly the narrative they crave: that trans people are not being targeted by injustice but punished for being too assertive. That our suffering is not due to cruelty or misinformation, but our own impatience.
This type of framing isn’t harmless; it validates the idea that transgender rights are a cultural provocation, not a matter of medical necessity or civil liberty. And by presenting this message through the voice of a trans person, the Times shields itself from accountability while reinforcing harmful stereotypes about the community being “too radical” for mainstream acceptance.
Even more disappointing is when these narratives are echoed by those in positions of political leadership.
Delaware Congresswoman Sarah McBride, the most visible trans elected official in the country, responded to the ruling by suggesting that:
“I hope this ruling gives us a moment to reflect… about how to ensure we are matching the tempo and tone of our politics with the tempo and tone of the broader electorate.”
At a moment when trans children are being cut off from life-saving care, when families are fleeing hostile states, and when clinicians are facing prosecution, the suggestion that the solution is to adjust our “tone” is stunningly out of step with the severity of the crisis.
Instead of calling out the cruelty of the ruling or naming the justices responsible, the comment reframes the backlash as a communication failure rather than the coordinated, well-funded assault on bodily autonomy that it is. It’s a political message designed to mollify swing voters, not protect vulnerable youth.
Together, these examples reflect a broader trend in mainstream media coverage: a preference for voices that conform to respectable narratives, even when those narratives undermine the urgency of the moment. Whether it’s a Times editorial platforming skepticism about gender identity or a trans politician softening the reality of a brutal decision, the result is the same: trans lives are treated as negotiable.
Meanwhile, the human cost goes underreported. Little attention is paid to the spike in suicide risk among trans youth denied care. Families being criminalized for supporting their children are rarely profiled. The long-term mental health toll of these laws on both children and adults, is given far less space than abstract concerns about political overreach.
These are not accidental omissions. They are editorial choices.
And they raise a fundamental question: When our stories are told through the voices of gatekeepers, and when our pain is softened to fit a “both-sides” narrative, who is journalism really serving?
A Call for Accountability
Let’s be clear: The New York Times is not beyond redemption. But it cannot fix this problem until it first acknowledges the depth of its failure.
- It must hire and elevate transgender journalists, not just freelancers, but full-time staff with editorial power.
- It must issue corrections or retractions for content that misrepresented sources or amplified misinformation.
- It must stop relying on “both sides” framing when one side seeks to erase an entire group of people.
- It must treat the current assault on transgender rights as a human rights crisis, not just a political trend.
And above all, it must stop treating trans lives as a debate.
The Bottom Line
If you’re a transgender person reading this and feeling erased, vilified, or exhausted by the relentless stream of harmful coverage, know this: You are not imagining it. And you are not alone.
We are watching legacy media rewrite public perception of our lives. We are seeing lawmakers cite flawed reporting to strip away our rights. And we are bearing the emotional, physical, and legal fallout of narratives we didn’t create.
But we are also here. Still fighting. Still writing. Still refusing to disappear.
We don’t need softer politics or quieter resistance. We need louder truth.
And that means holding institutions like The New York Times accountable, not out of spite, but because their choices have power. Power to inform. Power to mislead. Power to shape the future.
Let’s make sure they understand the weight of that responsibility.
