NYT Editor Explains Why They Changed a Pro-Trans Headline to Hide the Author’s Support of Trans People

Hello, I’m an editor for The New York Times.

You may be wondering how The Times makes some of its, what the liberals would call, “questionable” editing decisions. But I can assure you, here at The Times we are VERY liberal. Most of our mothers and fathers are conservative, and, after allowing them to pay our six-figure college tuition, we’ve decided to rebel against them. It doesn’t matter that we accidentally-maybe-on-purpose put a swastika design in our crossword puzzle on the first day of Hanukkah. We at The Times are COMMITTED to upholding neoliberal values. That’s why we are DEDICATED to “both sides” journalism. While far right rags write articles according to their biases alone, we at The Times prefer to tackle the issue from ALL SIDES before we commit to settling down into our preconceived notions of that issue. Because that is the GOLD STANDARD of journalism.

But some of our writers and contributors don’t always get the memo.

We recently received an open letter from hundreds if NYT contributors condemning what they deem to be an “anti-trans bias” here at The Times. There is no anti-trans bias here at The New York Times, just like there is no war in Ba Sing Se. The very idea is laughable. HA HA HA. INTERNS. LAUGH WITH ME OR YOU’RE OUT OF A GODDAMN JOB THAT DOESN’T PAY.

See what I mean? Just listen to those interns cackle through the tears. Heartwarming.

Now, to further illustrate that there is no anti-trans bias here at The Gray Lady, we made sure to publish an op-ed that targeted the issue from ALL SIDES (of one side). Just take a look at this op-ed written by this cisgendered old TERF Pamala Paul entitled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling,” which was published just ONE DAY after we received that open letter. Some people weren’t happy. Some people called it a “slap in the face.”

So you know what we did to appease both sides of this (one sided) issue? We asked for opinions from BOTH SIDES to respond to the op-ed in an article called JK Rowling And Trans Women: A Furor. And who was the person we picked to champion the rights of trans women? A cis man named Brian from Sommerville, Massachusetts! And after Brian’s take, we dove into the OTHER SIDE of the issue by hearing from a “lesbian feminist” who thinks that Rowling and Pamela Paul are in the RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY ARE—I mean—ARE COMMITTED TO LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE FROM BOTH SIDES, ONESIDELY.

For those of you curious as to why we didn’t feature any responses from trans women in this article, it was to avoid bias. Because trans women are biased. That’s why we don’t hire them—I mean—feature their opinions in articles about the veracity of their existence. Because we’re committed to being anti-trans—I MEAN ANTI-BIAS.

MOVING ON. Why Did We Change This Pro-Trans Headline To Something Completely Ambiguous? TO AVOID BIAS OF COURSE!?

The article in question is called “There Is No Dignity In This Kind Of America” and was written by Jamelle Bouie. GREAT TITLE. Whatever could it mean? Is it about the plunging necklines and rising hems that plague the youth of America? Could be! Where is the dignity in dressing like a tawdry strumpet, as my father would say. And he would know a thing or two about tawdry strumpets! He made his money in the advertising business in the 1960s! He and the boys were hiring a couple of those after their daily 12-martini lunch! And look how he turned out! He raised me well!

This title has a drama to it. An intrigue. It sounds like a goddamn Coen Brothers movie! It’ll generate clicks because it gets people thinking, which is what we want at The Times. Thinking about everything—except trans rights, of course.

*spits out martini*

DID I SAY THAT OUT LOUD?

Ignore that. Moving on. The original title of the piece? “The Relentless Attack On Trans Women In America.” Now I don’t know about you, but that sounds a little biased to me, doesn’t it? “Relentless attack?” Really? I mean, sure J.K. Rowling is spewing anti-trans statements left and right, but she’s all the way across the pond in her castle. That’s hardly an American problem, is it? No no no no no. Here in America, trans women have absolutely nothing to worry about. What about the statistics of violence against trans women, you asked? Well, what about them? What statistics? I don’t know anything about statistics. I don’t even know what statistics even ARE. Could you excuse me for a moment?

*He shoos you out of the office. The door slams. You hear him through the door.*

GODDAMNIT JANET, I THOUGHT WE BURNED THOSE STATISTICS! WHERE THE HELL ARE THOSE INTERNS. THE NEXT TIME I TELL THEM TO BURN SOME STATISTICS, I’M GONNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DUCT TAPE THOSE STATISTICS TO THEIR HANDS SO THEY BURN UP RIGHT ALONG WITH THEM.

*He opens the door.*

Sorry about that! Just had a little internal issue that we needed to work out. But everything is fine!

But listen, I’m real sorry to disappoint you, but there simply is no transphobic bias here at The Times. I’ve checked! We burned it all—I mean—we burned it all into our MINDS to always see a contentious issue like this from both sides.

If our readers want to read between the lines of our abortion access article that blames “transgender activists and eager progressives” for derailing the abortion conversation away from cis women and call that transphobic, well, that’s just there derogative! I mean, prerogative. And we certainly won’t be held responsible for any and all violent acts against trans people that our articles may indirectly result in! That’s just simply not our problem! Our problem is figuring out how we can bring unbiased journalism to the masses that actually provides a series of anti-trans dog whistles and prejudices to feed the fire of outrage and DRIVE TRAFFIC TO OUR WEBSITE. BECAUSE WE GOTTA MAKE MONEY, BABY. NOW GET THE HELL OUT OF MY OFFICE.

Janet, have one of the interns make me a soothing cup of Earl Gray Lady. This relentless attack on the free press is making my head hurt.

(Featured image: Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images)