I used to work at The Seattle Times, and the newsroom’s culture had become unusual by the time I left. Pronoun buttons were placed near the entrance with an invitation to wear them, one area was called the “Lounge and DEI Reading Room,” and the newsroom book club discussed several books arguing that white people are inherently racist.
Given that atmosphere, I wasn’t entirely surprised by a recent story about Washington voters’ support for Initiative 638, which bars transgender girls from competing in girls’ K–12 sports. The article asked whether voters were motivated by concerns about fairness or by prejudice toward transgender people.
The reporters included perspectives from both sides. But one passage stood out: it said there was no serious scientific evidence that transgender women and girls are better athletes than cisgender women and girls, and that none had dominated at elite college or professional levels.
That claim deserves scrutiny. If the question is about athletes who are biologically male, average differences in size, strength, speed and power between males and females are well established. The article’s author pointed to a recent example in Camas, Washington, where a runner moved from 76th place in a boys’ junior varsity race to first place in a girls’ varsity race after switching teams midseason. There are few comparable reports of female athletes switching to boys’ teams and dominating.
Research on hormone therapy is more complicated. Some studies have found that physical advantages can persist after testosterone suppression. Investigative journalist Benjamin Ryan, writing about the issue in January, cited a 2025 paper that reported remaining differences in muscle strength, power, size and aerobic capacity among transgender women who had gone through male puberty.
Ryan also referenced a 2020 review in the journal Sports Medicine. It found that transgender women lost about 5% of muscle mass, on average, after a year of testosterone suppression, suggesting that some advantages developed during male puberty may remain.
Seattle radio host Jason Rantz cited a 2020 study of U.S. Air Force personnel that found transgender women ran a 1.5-mile course 12% faster than female counterparts after two years of hormone therapy. Rantz also noted research showing that hormone treatment can substantially reduce athletic performance. The findings, then, are not all pointing in one direction.
Still, saying there is no serious scientific evidence seems difficult to defend. And the claim that no transgender woman has dominated at an elite college or professional level is also open to question. Lia Thomas, a swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania, was ranked 65th nationally in the 500-yard freestyle in 2019. After nearly three years of feminizing hormone therapy, she won the NCAA Division I title in that event in 2022. It’s fair to ask what would count as dominance if a national championship does not.
To me, the Seattle Times article read more like advocacy than straightforward reporting. In its coverage of Initiative 638, the paper quoted a family physician who criticized the measure but did not explain her background in transgender medicine. The paper also sent a reporter to several cross-country meets involving the runner who switched to the girls’ team, yet the resulting coverage did not include comments from female runners who competed there.
I don’t blame the reporter for that omission. I saw the reporter speaking with girls at the meets, and it seems possible an editor chose not to include their views. But the result still struck me as one-sided.
Readers could once respond in the comments section, but comments on the story had been disabled. After reading a passage that seemed to dismiss evidence they may consider important, I suspect some readers felt the paper had underestimated them.
