Apparently they want the paper to stop telling people that schools are conspiring to mutilate children, and keep it secret from the parents.
A host of New York Times contributors accused the newspaper of “editorial bias” in its coverage of transgender and non-binary people — even in stories that ask if schools should keep parents in the dark about their children’s gender choices.
An open letter signed by nearly 200 contributors and advocates accused the Gray Lady of stoking fears by treating “gender diversity with an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources” in recent years.
The NY Times is one of the driving forces behind wokeness today. The Woke Left gets more extreme all the time. They will eat their own.
Update: Reason explains what is wrong with the letter:
According to the letter, people like Bazelon are partially to blame, because she outlined a history and nuanced debate. By this logic, it is only ethical for journalists to cover controversial topics if they are prepared to come to a foregone conclusion. It inverts the mantra that journalists should "show and not tell" and instead requires they tell and not show.This shows that there is no dealing with trans activists. The NYT articles were all pro-trans, but not pro-trans enough for the activists.
A primary fault of Bazelon's article, according to the Times contributors, is that she "uncritically used the term 'patient zero' to refer to a trans child seeking gender-affirming care, a phrase that vilifies transness as a disease to be feared," they write. "This is the same rhetoric that transphobic policymakers recently reintroduced to the American lawmaking apparatus by quoting Emily Bazelon's Times article." The person Bazelon calls "Patient Zero" is also referred to in the piece as F.G., a transgender man who, as a teenager in the 1980s, was the first recipient of a new treatment protocol at an influential gender clinic in Amsterdam. That treatment would go on to revolutionize the science.