The Seattle Times has drawn significant criticism for its reporting on transgender athletes in women's sports, particularly following Washington voters' decisive support for Initiative 638, a measure that separates boys and girls in K-12 sports. Critics argue that the Times' assertion of 'no serious scientific evidence' supporting advantages for transgender women athletes is misleading and dismisses existing research.
In an article examining the voter support for Initiative 638, The Seattle Times included a paragraph stating, "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." This claim has been challenged by OutKick columnist Matt Calkins and others who point to studies suggesting persistent physical advantages even after hormone therapy.
One study cited indicates that while testosterone suppression can reduce performance, significant advantages in muscle strength, power, size, and aerobic capacity may remain for transgender women who have gone through male puberty. Another review found that transgender women typically lose only about 5% of their muscle mass after a year of testosterone suppression, retaining much of the strength advantage gained during male puberty. Further research on Air Force personnel suggested transgender women remained 12% faster in a run after two years of hormone therapy.
The reporting by The Seattle Times also faced scrutiny for its handling of specific examples, such as transgender swimmer Lia Thomas winning an NCAA Division I championship in the 500-yard freestyle after competing at a lower rank prior to her transition. Critics contend this demonstrates a level of dominance that contradicts the newspaper's claims.
OutKick's Calkins, a former Seattle Times columnist, characterized the publication's coverage as activism rather than journalism, pointing to instances where sources with specific expertise in transgender medicine were quoted without disclosing their background and a perceived lack of diverse voices, such as female athletes directly affected by these issues, in the reporting. The decision to disable comments on the article further fueled accusations of an unwillingness to engage with dissenting viewpoints.