New York Times Publishes Op-Ed Defending J.K. Rowling’s Trans Views Amid Accusations of Anti-Trans Bias

An op-ed article in The New York Times has expressed support for J.K. Rowling’s views on transgender issues, following the publication of two open letters on Wednesday alleging the paper’s past coverage of child sex changes was biased against transgender people.

The New York Times published an op-ed titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” by columnist Pamela Paul one day after nearly 200 of the newspaper’s contributors signed a joint letter accusing The New York Times of “anti-trans bias” and aligning their views with “far-right hate groups,” which was followed by a second letter led by LGBT advocacy group GLAAD and signed by activists and public figures.

“Our journalism strives to explore, interrogate and reflect the experiences, ideas and debates in society — to help readers understand them. Our reporting did exactly that and we’re proud of it,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesman for the Times, adding that on the subject of transgender issues, the consideration that went into their reporting was done “deeply and empathetically.”

The New York Times has found itself embroiled in a heated debate on transgender issues after publishing articles in recent months that attempted to take a fair and balanced approach on the subject of pediatric social and medical transition.

Backlash from the reporting culminated in two open letters that were published on Wednesday, one from 200 New York Times staff and contributors to Philip B. Corbett, associate managing editor for standards at the Times, and the other from GLAAD, an LGBT advocacy organization, signed by celebrities and activists.

The first letter accused the paper of “editorial bias” in its reporting on “transgender, non-binary, and gender nonconforming people,” while the second letter accused the NYT of “irresponsible, biased coverage of transgender people.” The signatories of the GLAAD letter include several campaign groups, along with celebrities including Jameela Jamil, Lena Dunham, Gabrielle Union, Judd Apatow, and Tommy Dorfman.

A few of the “problematic” articles the letters mentioned were Emily Bazelon’s “The Battle Over Gender Therapy,” “When Students Change Gender Identity and Parents Don’t Know” by Katie Baker, and “How to Make Sense of the New L.G.B.T.Q. Culture War” by Ross Douthat.

The publication of the pro-Rowling article indicates that The New York Times is still willing to share a range of opinions on the debate, despite criticism. In her op-ed, Paul argued that the abuse faced by the author of the “Harry Potter” series is unfounded and that her statements do not qualify as transphobic. She denounced Rowling’s detractors as a “noisy fringe of the internet and a number of powerful transgender rights activists and L.G.B.T.Q. lobbying groups.”

Paul argues that Rowling is not disputing the existence of gender dysphoria and has never voiced opposition to allowing adults to transition under evidence-based medical care, but her defense of biological women’s spaces, skepticism of self-declared “gender identity,” and support for detransitioners and feminist scholars have been interpreted by some as “transphobic.”

Paul references the new podcast, “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling,” set to launch next week by Megan Phelps-Roper, a former member of the notorious Westboro Baptist Church, which includes nine hours of interviews with Rowling that explore her views and the backlash faced by the author.

Paul argues that those who accuse Rowling of punching down against her critics ignore the fact that she is sticking up for those who have silenced themselves to avoid job loss, public vilification, and threats to physical safety that other critics of recent gender orthodoxies have suffered.

“The pushback is often, ‘You are wealthy. You can afford security. You haven’t been silenced.’ All true. But I think that misses the point,” Rowling says in the podcast. “The attempt to intimidate and silence me is meant to serve as a warning to other women” with similar views who might want to have their opinions heard.

Why I Won’t Be Voting For Nikki Haley

Should you vote for Nikki Haley in the 2024 GOP presidential primary? This author will not be.

On today’s show, I thought it would be best to let the Candace Owens audience know why that is — and how some behind-the-scenes interactions with Haley and her team helped craft my decision. The goal is not to sway you one way or the other, but to provide you with details that can help guide your decision-making process.

The former United Nations ambassador announced her candidacy for the presidency on Tuesday. Her first campaign video can be seen here:

Get excited! Time for a new generation.

Let’s do this! 👊 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/BD5k4WY1CP

— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) February 14, 2023

The conservative choices thus far are former President Donald J. Trump and Haley. It is a strong likelihood that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis will also enter the race, although he has not officially made an announcement.

Haley will not be getting my vote. I want to make clear, it has nothing to do with any sort of personal grievance. I met her once, and she was very nice to me. However, as part of my job, I am often privy to having a more intimate look at politicians and those working on their campaigns. Whenever possible, I try to share those experiences on my podcast for your benefit.

Haley reportedly charged as high as $200,000 for a speaker’s fee after she left the Trump administration. Those who dealt with her have expressed their frustration that she never had any flexibility with that large sum of money.

A few years ago, I was invited to a dinner where Nikki Haley was the keynote speaker. This was a high-dollar donor event. Depending on how much you paid, attendees could partake in privileges such as asking Haley a question or posing for a photo with her. The more you paid, the more up close and private it was supposed to be.

What I saw during Haley’s speech was a polished professional speaker — who stuck to her script verbatim. It almost seemed a little too rehearsed, not authentic. The donors in attendance, however, loved it.

When audience members asked her questions, she had specific answers that seemed pre-written, almost as if she knew the questions in advance. Well, a gentleman sitting at my dinner table, who happened to be hosting the event, confirmed my suspicions. Indeed, Haley’s staff required all questions be submitted far in advance. Donors were not allowed to go off script.

Instantly, it was apparent that something was bothering the gentleman sitting next to me. He explained how it took a lot of money to bring Haley to the event and how her team had strict requirements, including dictating what questions could be asked.

It turns out the last question this gentleman asked — a question relevant to a story about Trump and NATO which broke that day — was not on Haley’s radar. Her team swooped in afterwards and completely undressed him for going off script. Keep in mind, this was a man who helped coordinate the event.

That confirmed my intuition — she was not being authentic with her donors. It seemed evident she was preparing for a presidential run. My predictions were proven true this week when she made her announcement.

Personally, a polished politician is not the candidate I would like to support. I like unscripted politicians who are comfortable speaking their minds and engaging in real conversations with reporters, their colleagues, and the public. In fact, that is what I always loved about Trump.

When I interviewed him, his team never told me what questions to ask or avoid. Whether you love him or hate him, you cannot deny he was authentically Trump. It was refreshing because that’s a character trait so many politicians seem to lack.

Unfortunately, it has turned me into a cynic about politics. You can never be entirely sure when a politician is giving you a straight answer.

Now, these are my gut instincts and my own personal experiences with Haley. You should not necessarily let this column determine whether you will cast your vote for Haley or not. You might completely disagree with my stance. My job is, in part, to provide you with as much knowledge as I can about these candidates so that you can make an informed decision at the ballot box.

About Us

Virtus (virtue, valor, excellence, courage, character, and worth)

Vincit (conquers, triumphs, and wins)