USA Today Unilaterally Removes “Hurtful Language” from a Female College Athlete’s Op-Ed

Chelsea Mitchell runs track at the college level. On May 22, USA Today published her Op-Ed in which she complained that runners who had “male bodies” are repeatedly and unfairly winning championships in women’s college track meets. Three days after the publication of the Op-Ed, USA Today retroactively edited Chelsea Mitchell’s Op-Ed, offering the following reasons as an editor’s note:

Editor’s note: This column has been updated to reflect USA TODAY’s standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used.

I took the liberty of running a “compare” of the edited part of the original article (published in its original form by Alliance Defending Freedom) to the new version of the USA Today article, the one from which the “hurtful language” has been removed. The red corrections were the changes made by USA Today.

Chelsea compare cropped p.1 Page 1

I don’t understand what is factually inappropriate about saying that the MTF (male to female) transgender runners to some degree, retained “male bodies” if that is what Chelsea Mitchell (an accomplished athlete) observed. These are facts that are also strongly borne out by the stunning success of these runners when they are competing against the runners who are biologically female.  That is, in fact, the entire point of Chelsea Mitchell’s Op-Ed. Apparently, she will not be allowed to make her argument in her own words.

Mitchell’s article did not even once mention the vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless word, “gender.” Her article was about the two sexes, male and female. Perhaps USA Today also finds basic biology principles hurtful, including this finding, which goes back for thousands of years: Mammals, including human animals, come in two and only two sexes, male (small gametes) and female (larger gametes) (and see this peer reviewed article.  There is not a third type of gamete.  Mitchell should be allowed to freely discuss and compare the competitive advantages of those with biologically male bodies versus those with biologically female bodies.  That said, this is 2021, and we are in the deep throes of Wokeness. 

Share

Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.

This Post Has 3 Comments

    1. Avatar of Erich Vieth
      Erich Vieth

      Ruth, that was difficult to watch. What a brave student. That is most definitely preaching, not teaching. And the student DID “take it somewhere else.”

  1. Avatar of Bill Heath
    Bill Heath

    There is a misunderstanding about science. There are no facts in science, only our best understanding of current information and reality. That does not mean that our best understanding of current information and reality is merely an opinion, no better than any other opinion. Science does its best to disprove our best understanding, and until it does, it remains the best understanding. Other opinions are typically disproved out of the box.

    There are only two genders in humans. That is our current best understanding of current information and reality. There are hermaphrodites which contain both male and female genitalia to one degree or another, but those are very rare and are not what is being wokesplained here. Yes, it is possible for a male to identify as a female, and the reverse, although I’ve never seen a single case in elementary school children. The individual retains the basic birth biology, but an atypical structure and/or wiring in the brain makes the individual miserable with that biology, and believes he is a woman trapped in a man’s body or the reverse. I accept that this is real, but it does not create a new gender. A male remains a biological male and a female remains a biological female. We need to respect the reality that transgenderism is real, while maintaining our understanding that this is not wrong, merely atypical.

    The problem comes with children making irreversible decisions that may inflict harm on their bodies. Our first obligation as adults, and especially parents, is to protect children, including from themselves. When I say “children” I’m using the term as a proxy for humans whose prefrontal cortex has not fully matured. That occurs in the early twenties, earlier for females than for males. Until then, I believe it is unethical to use puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or surgery.

    I’m too old to be canceled. Biology is doing that at its own pace.Feel free to hurl insults. I was born without the give-a-shit gene.

Leave a Reply