After Getting The Ruling It Wanted, New York Times Publishes 6 Anti-Trans Articles

The paper has lost all claim to objectivity on transgender people.

Photo by Marco Lenti on Unsplash

Opinion - In the fight for transgender rights, few institutions have been more complicit in fueling the backlash than The New York Times. The paper, which has a documented history of publishing misleading coverage on transgender people, has repeatedly been cited in legal briefs used to justify bans on gender-affirming care. In yesterday’s devastating Supreme Court ruling that stripped medical rights from transgender youth, Times articles were cited seven times to support the decision. Now, fresh off the ruling it helped legitimize, the paper has published at least six more stories spreading misinformation on transgender healthcare, amplifying anti-trans voices, targeting Democrats for supporting trans rights, and laying the groundwork for even harsher crackdowns.

One article criticizes transgender activists for the “real-world complications of self-ID,” effectively suggesting that the government should have the authority to restrict a person’s core identity. “That possibility has left some trans people wondering if it is time to build a new, less dogmatic politics to defend their rights,” writes Nicholas Confessore, who continues: “A movement that could grapple more honestly with scientific uncertainty and the real-world complications of self-ID, they believe, might be more capable of defending their health care and a legal path to transition.” The vague reference to “some trans people” reads less like sourced reporting and more like a projection of Confessore’s own hopeful vision for the future—one where more concessions are made to the anti-trans right. But the transgender people and families I know aren’t hoping for a softer movement. They’re furious. And they’re fighting harder than ever against efforts to erase them.

Other articles lean heavily on selective European reviews used to justify restricting transgender healthcare, ignoring that several countries—France, Germany, Sweden, and Austria—have recently reaffirmed the importance of such care in newer guidelines. A Republican-commissioned review in Utah similarly found the care to be critical for transgender youth, yet goes unmentioned. One piece frames the Supreme Court decision as a backlash to a movement “consumed by theories of sex and gender that most voters didn’t grasp or support,” subtly legitimizing a rollback of rights as a reasonable voter reaction. In all, at least half a dozen articles have been published by the Times in the 24 hours following the ruling—ink still drying—spreading misinformation, shaming transgender people, and giving prominent space to voices that seek to strip us of our rights.

This fits squarely within the New York Times’ long history of publishing anti-transgender content. In 2024, columnist Pamela Paul published a 4,500-word piece that became one of the most widely criticized examples of disinformation on transgender issues in a mainstream outlet. Among its many falsehoods, the article claimed a therapist had been investigated for “approaching gender dysphoria in a more considered way”—when, in reality, the investigation stemmed from her alleged use of aversive techniques, including recommending that trans youth be stabbed with acupuncture needles to induce pain. Paul also promoted the debunked theory that many transgender people are simply gay individuals transitioning due to greater societal acceptance—a claim sharply contradicted by actual data on discrimination and acceptance rates. Additionally, she repeated the discredited statistic that 80% of transgender youth eventually “desist,” despite the most robust studies placing that figure between 1% and 3%. Her article was cited twice in Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in United States v. Skrmetti, helping to spread these inaccuracies into Supreme Court precedent.

Justice Samuel Alito also cited New York Times reporter Azeen Ghorayshi’s interview with Jamie Reed, a self-described whistleblower from a Missouri transgender youth clinic, to support the claim that detransition might be common. Ghorayshi’s report was widely criticized for giving a sympathetic platform to Reed, whose allegations were later found to include several false or misleading claims—such as attributing a medical complication to puberty blockers when the patient in question had actually experienced side effects from an anti-COVID medication following a severe infection.

Now, the New York Times appears to be dancing on the graves of the transgender youth it has repeatedly thrown to the wolves. Where are the transgender journalists at the paper who could report on this moment with lived experience, deep ties to impacted communities, and insight into the clinicians and families affected? Where is the coverage of the sharp rise in suicidality following anti-trans legislation? Where is the analysis of how the Skrmetti decision could ripple far beyond trans rights, further eroding women’s rights and bodily autonomy?

The Times has made its editorial choices. It has chosen to elevate anti-LGBTQ+ voices and platform hate groups as if they are neutral experts, while framing families seeking basic medical rights as extremists who have “pushed too far.” In doing so, the paper has abdicated its journalistic responsibility. Its failures will be a black stain on its legacy for a generation.