The Seattle Times has drawn criticism from an OutKick columnist after a Sunday report on Washington's Initiative 638 included the claim that there is "no serious scientific evidence" that transgender athletes have an advantage over women. The columnist, a former Times employee, argues that the paper's coverage was one-sided and that the claim does not reflect the research available.
Initiative 638 bars biological males from competing in girls' K-12 sports in Washington state. According to the column, the Times quoted supporters and opponents of the measure, yet the piece also carried the paragraph asserting there is no serious evidence of an advantage. The paper additionally stated that no transgender women had dominated elite college or professional sports. The columnist said the paragraph appeared alongside those quotes without the context needed to weigh the claim.
The columnist responded by citing research on physiological differences. A 2025 paper was cited as finding that testosterone suppression leaves strength and aerobic advantages in place. A 2020 review found that trans women lose about 5 percent of muscle mass after a year of hormone treatment. A 2020 Air Force study reported that trans women were 12 percent faster after two years on hormones. Each of these findings, the column argues, points in the opposite direction from the Times paragraph.
Jason Rantz, a commentator, also disputed the Times claim, noting that some evidence exists on the effects of hormone reduction. His objection echoed the columnist's central point that the question is more contested than the newspaper's wording suggested.
The column also points to the case of Lia Thomas, who won the 2022 NCAA Division I 500-yard freestyle title. Thomas's victory became one of the most widely discussed examples in the national debate over transgender athletes in women's competition, and the columnist cited it as evidence that the issue is not hypothetical.
The columnist further objected that the Times quoted a physician without disclosing that the doctor has a background in transgender medicine, a detail the columnist said readers would need to assess the expert's view. The columnist also noted that comments on the Times story had been disabled, limiting public response on the newspaper's own site. The Seattle Times had not responded to these criticisms in the material available.