Full disclosure: I used to work for The Seattle Times. And it got pretty weird there at the end.
Pronoun buttons that you were “totally encouraged” to wear sat in a basket by the front door. One space near the entrance was labeled the “Lounge and DEI Reading Room.” The newsroom’s book club, meanwhile, featured multiple works declaring that all white people were racist.
So one might expect some suspect copy to appear in the publication — and last weekend didn’t disappoint.
WASHINGTON STATE VOTERS APPEAR TO PASS FIRST-EVER BALLOT MEASURE SEPARATING BOYS AND GIRLS SPORTS
Sunday morning, the Times ran a story examining why Washington voters decisively backed Initiative 638, a measure barring biological males from girls’ K-12 sports, even as Democrats made gains elsewhere on the ballot. The article explored whether the result reflected concerns about fairness in women’s sports or prejudice against transgender people.
To the reporters’ credit, they quoted people on both sides of the issue. But there was one paragraph that looked as though it was inserted post-proofread as a prank.
“There is no serious scientific evidence that trans girls or women are better athletes than cisgender girls or women. A few transgender girls have won at the high school level, but across the U.S., just a few trans women have competed at elite college or professional levels, and none have dominated their sport.”
Really? No serious scientific evidence? No domination at the elite college or professional level? Just how dense does the Times think its readers are?
First, one has to ask — what is a “trans girl” or “trans woman?” Could this be as simple as a boy identifying as the opposite sex? Because in that case, no scientific studies are necessary. Males are, on average, significantly bigger, stronger, faster and more explosive than females. This explains why a cross country runner in Camas, Washington, went from 76th in a boys JV race to first in a girls varsity race after switching teams midseason this year. It also explains why there aren’t complaints about biological girls switching sides and dominating the boys.
But even with hormone therapy, an array of studies have found that significant physical differences can persist between transgender women and biological females.
In a Substack post on this topic in January, investigative journalist Benjamin Ryan linked to a 2025 scientific paper showing that, while testosterone suppression reduces athletic performance in transgender women who have undergone male puberty, substantial advantages in muscle strength, power, size and aerobic capacity can remain.
Ryan also pointed to a 2020 review published in Sports Medicine that found transgender women typically lose just 5% of their muscle mass after a year of testosterone suppression, meaning much of the strength and muscle advantage gained during male puberty can remain after hormone therapy.
Seattle Red radio host Jason Rantz also dug into the science in taking down the Times’ claim. He cited a 2020 study of U.S. Air Force personnel showing that transgender women were still 12% faster than their female counterparts in a 1.5-mile run after two years of hormone therapy.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE
To his credit, Rantz also pointed to studies showing that hormone treatment can significantly reduce athletic performance. So no, the research doesn’t all point in the same direction.
But to suggest there’s no serious scientific evidence? Where did they look? TikTok?
THE CRAIG CARTON SHOW–UNFILTERED, UNAPOLOGETIC AND UNMISSABLE. DOWNLOAD HIS DAILY PODCAST NOW!
Equally ludicrous was the Times’ line that no trans women have dominated their sport at “elite college or professional levels.” Penn swimmer Lia Thomas was ranked 65th in the country in the 500-yard freestyle in 2019. Then, despite undergoing feminizing hormone therapy for nearly three years, she won the NCAA Division I championship in the same event in 2022. If winning a national title isn’t dominant, what is?
Sorry, but this comes off as an advocacy piece dressed as a news story. And it’s consistent with the Seattle Times’ coverage of this issue. They quoted a “family physician” criticizing I-638 without disclosing her background in transgender medicine. They also sent a reporter to three different cross country meets involving the boy who switched to the girls team but never quoted a female runner from those events.
I don’t blame the reporter — who I saw talking to girls — for the latter. I suspect that an editor decided to omit those voices. But the bottom line is that this is activism, not journalism.
Fortunately, the Times has a comment section at the bottom of each story where subscribers can push back. Oops. Never mind. The comments were turned off.
And my guess is that after the paper insulted their intelligence, the readers were as well.
