Conservatives Shred NYT ‘Science Reporter’ Complaining About ‘Scrutiny’ Of Trans Swimmer Lia Thomas

Conservatives ripped a science reporter from The New York Times after she posted a tweet complaining about the continuing controversy surrounding transgender collegiate swimmer Lia Thomas, formerly known as Will Thomas.

“Lia Thomas is just the latest elite athlete in the last century who has been subject to anatomical, chromosomal or hormonal scrutiny to compete in women’s events,” NYT science reporter Azeen Ghorayshi tweeted, including a link to an article she wrote. “One thing they all have in common? They were winning.”

NEW from me: Lia Thomas is just the latest elite athlete in the last century who has been subject to anatomical, chromosomal or hormonal scrutiny to compete in women’s events.

One thing they all have in common? They were winning.https://t.co/7FkP04NiXB

— Azeen Ghorayshi (@azeen) February 16, 2022

The article itself, published on Wednesday, is titled, “Trans Swimmer Revives an Old Debate in Elite Sports: What Defines a Woman?” In the piece, Ghorayshi recapped historical controversies that arose when female athletes “deemed too masculine started to win.” Ghorayshi referenced  women who were banned from competing in sports because of genetic conditions or elite female athletes with testosterone levels comparable to men, and attempted to lump Thomas in with them:

In recent months, Thomas has made headlines not only for her speed… but also for her gender identity…

Some have called for her to be barred or separated from regular competition, arguing that her body underwent changes during puberty that gave her a lasting, unfair advantage. But others have contended that there’s no justification for excluding transgender athletes like her.

These thorny questions over the nature of athleticism are not new in women’s sports. They have come up many times over the past century, typically when an athlete deemed too masculine started to win. Sports authorities have leaned on medical tests — whether anatomical, chromosomal or hormonal — to determine eligibility in women’s categories, while requiring no analogous tests for men.

But in the realm of elite physical performance, where extraordinary biology is the rule, science has never provided neat answers.

To back up her claim, Ghorayshi cited anecdotes about female competitors in the Olympic Games throughout recent decades, including physical and genetic testing for female competitors, a 1976 lawsuit by Tennis player Renee Richards over such testing, testosterone testing, and the International Olympic Committee loosening its regulations on testosterone testing, then abandoning sex tests altogether. Ghorayshi also cited the role of testosterone, including a study which found crossover between elite female athletes with high testosterone and elite male athletes with low testosterone. While she did admit that trans athletes have some physical advantages from puberty, the article was content to conclude with the dilemma between “excluding” trans athletes or letting them compete with their inherent biological advantages.

Conservative Twitter users blasted Ghorayshi.

“Azeen, since you are a science reporter for the New York Times writing about transgender athletes in women’s events, & since your headline is ‘Trans Swimmer Revives an Old Debate in Elite Sports: What Defines a Woman?’… can you please define what you believe a woman is?” Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy wrote.

Azeen, since you are a science reporter for the New York Times writing about transgender athletes in women’s events, & since your headline is “Trans Swimmer Revives an Old Debate in Elite Sports: What Defines a Woman?”… can you please define what you believe a woman is? Thanks. https://t.co/Inucv2Lep2

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) February 17, 2022

“Please explain what ‘chromosomal scrutiny’ means,” conservative commentator Stephen L. Miller tweeted.

Please explain what “chromosomal scrutiny” means. https://t.co/jDY35e0w6j

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 17, 2022

“The most common argument for incorporating trans athletes was ‘why does it matter? They don’t even win.’ Now that one is dominant, the argument flips to ‘you’re just mad because they’re winning,’” Tablet Magazine CTO Noam Blum remarked.

The most common argument for incorporating trans athletes was “why does it matter? They don’t even win.” Now that one is dominant, the argument flips to “you’re just mad because they’re winning.” https://t.co/P6wc7q1eao

— Noam Blum (@neontaster) February 17, 2022

“[T]hat’s odd. I wonder if their anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal features has anything to do with their success and subsequent scrutiny,” The Daily Wire’s Tim Meads responded.

that’s odd. I wonder if their anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal features has anything to do with their success and subsequent scrutiny https://t.co/wY4xt5pLVp

— Tim Meads (@TimMeadsUSA) February 17, 2022

“The ‘scrutiny’ you’re referring to is noticing that Lia Thomas is not a woman competing in women’s events,” journalist Inez Feltscher Stepman tweeted:

The “scrutiny” you’re referring to is noticing that Lia Thomas is not a woman competing in women’s events. https://t.co/bDLEKyWgHI

— Inez Stepman ⚪️🔴⚪️ (@InezFeltscher) February 17, 2022

Other responses can be found below:

New York Times “science” reporter https://t.co/Inucv2Lep2

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) February 17, 2022

The scrutiny comes from the fact that Thomas is a man and has a biological advantage over the female athletes Thomas is competing against. Equating the scrutiny of women – actual women – to Thomas is absurd. https://t.co/gwZB8KA81f

— Christopher Tremoglie (@cwtremo) February 17, 2022

Not. A. Woman. https://t.co/qGY8Dr9OFq

— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) February 17, 2022

Cheater. https://t.co/Fu9RqsUDB8

— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) February 17, 2022

It takes an enormous degree of credulity to believe that the scrutiny here isn’t a result of Thomas having been a member of the men’s swimming team at the same university as recently as 2019. https://t.co/azXZGYquxg

— Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) February 17, 2022

The Daily Wire’s first original film, Shut In, has made its cinematic debut, being met with rave reviews. The Daily Wire is building an alternative to the leftist entertainment industry, one gripping movie at a time. Join us in this mission and stream Shut In today by becoming a Daily Wire member.