On Feb. 20, The Wire put out an article titled “Initiative Moves to Ban Transgender Girls from High School Sports.” We read it. We read IL26-638. We went back and read The Wire’s piece a second time to make sure we weren’t being overly critical.
And, unsurprisingly, we weren’t.
The Wire’s article is exactly what its title suggests, a mouthpiece for an ideological persuasion.
So, let’s not waste time pretending as if there are nuances and intricacies that we’re not taking into consideration, since there are none.
We are not here to scrutinize the apparent reporter or The Wire. If it wants to take a side on IL26-638, it can do that. Opinion pages exist for a reason. But running activist framing through the news section, that too a halfhearted one, while banking on the assumption that the readers won’t be able to discern between being informed and being persuaded, is not journalism. This isn’t a “bold stance.” It’s intellectual laziness dressed up as conviction, abusing the trust of the student body in the longest-running student organization at Whitman College.
Now, what we find particularly interesting in The Wire’s title is the use of the phrase “transgender girls,” which quite beautifully acts as an ideological anchor even before the readers get to comprehend the substance. What’s more, the word “girls” takes a certain side in the debate over this initiative, and treats every assumption made by that side as fact. The whole point of IL26-638 is to ask whether biological males who identify as female should compete in girls’ athletics. That’s the question. And The Wire frames the answer in the headline itself, presenting the conclusion before the argument.
This isn’t “objective reporting”; this is like writing your thesis statement and calling it a headline. A reasonable or verifiable title would be something along the lines of “IL26-638 Would Require Biological Males to Compete in Male Athletic Categories” or “IL26-638 Would Preserve Female-Only Athletic Competition Based on Biological Sex.” But a reasonable or verifiable title would not generate the same emotional response, and an emotional response is precisely what the only student organization to enjoy absolute autonomy and ASWC funding would prioritize.
To graciously borrow some of The Wire’s own language: “headlines and captions should accurately reflect the content of articles” (p. 19, Governing Documents). To “ban” means to be excluded from participating at all levels. IL26-638 does not ban anyone from participating in sports. It, in fact, preserves sex-based categorization in athletics for the sake of a level playing field. A transgender-identifying biological male can still compete in sports – just in the male category. Calling that a “ban” is editorial language doing advocacy work, which is quite simply irreconcilable with a publication that pledges in its own preamble to “strive to maintain a standard of utmost fairness, quality and journalistic integrity” (p. 14, Governing Documents).
Now, coming to the actual initiative, IL26-638, signed by 445,187 Washington residents, with the attention it deserves, because The Whitman Wire definitely did not do that.
The four propositions of this initiative are:
1. Washington state already requires students to get a routine physical check before participating in interscholastic athletics, and that, by default, includes documentation of the biological sex.
2. This document helps schools have a reliable and medically verifiable metric to determine a student’s biological sex.
3. Preserving fairness in women’s interschool athletics means students ought to compete in the category that matches their documented biological sex.
4. Using the existing physical examination process to verify biological sex ensures equity, health safety (psychological, neurological and physical), and maintains a level playing field.
All four of these points are already standard practice, and IL26-638 simply ensures that the sports physical check, which documents sex, is used to maintain the functionality of sex-segregated athletic competition.
Critics have made hysterical claims that this is some kind of “genital inspection,” a substantively false claim. In reality, it is a typical signed document from the student’s own personal healthcare provider, the same provider who also conducts the sports physical, verifying the student’s biological sex based on genitals, genotype or testosterone levels.
About 70% of Americans believe that athletes shall compete based on their birth gender. 50% of Democrats agree with that position. So, treating it as a “fringe belief” or a “partisan issue” is not journalism. The news editor, either on purpose or by accident, instead of engaging with the matter of IL26-638, indulged in what we consider ‘idea smuggling’ – adopting the entirety of one side of the transgender sports debate and presenting it as if this were the only reasonable position.
We do admire The Wire’s commitment to a certain kind of student journalism. A kind of journalism that somehow mutates every complex issue into a narrative of virtue signaling, leaving out legislative details and not informing but comforting the readers, which is, of course, the precise opposite of what journalism is supposed to do.
We leave The Wire with an unpretentious and novel proposal: the next time it covers a legislative initiative, it might consider reading the initiative first.
David Dunbabin, Chair
Kshiteesh Sharma, Vice-Chair
Chan Aung, Secretary
Leo Haas, Treasurer
Kshiteesh (WRC) • Mar 14, 2026 at 9:02 pm
To the person who said that “transgender girls” is a commonly understood term and therefore neutral. A term being commonly understood does not make it editorially neutral. “Biological males” is also commonly understood. The difference is that “biological males” describes what IL26-638 actually regulates, because IL26-638 does not use the word “transgender” a single time. It uses “biologically male students.” So when the Wire swaps the initiative’s own operative language for an ideologically contested alternative and sticks it in the headline, that’s not reporting. Which, again, was the entire point of our letter.
You say “biological males” offers the reader less context than “transgender girls.” We’d argue the opposite. “Biological males” tells the reader what the law is about: athletic eligibility based on biological sex. “Transgender girls” tells the reader how a subset of those individuals identify, which is relevant to plenty of conversations but is not what IL26-638 legislates. A news headline’s job is to describe what a law does, not to print their understanding f one affected group into the framing of the legislation.
Now, you take issue with our proposed headline, “IL26-638 Would Preserve Female-Only Athletic Competition Based on Biological Sex,” and say it “centers preservation” and “aligns with a more conservative agenda.” We’d encourage you to read IL26-638. Section 1(3) says its purpose is “Protecting the integrity and fairness of women’s interscholastic sports.” Section 1(4) says it “ensures equity, safety, and competitive balance”. The initiative’s own stated purpose is preservation. A headline that reflects the initiative’s stated purpose is reporting. A headline that replaces it with the word “ban,” a word that appears nowhere in the text, is advocacy. If accurately paraphrasing a law “aligns with a conservative agenda,” that tells you something about the law, not about the headline.
Also, by your own logic, the Wire’s headline, which characterizes the law as a “ban” and uses the term “transgender girls,” aligns with a progressive agenda. The difference is that we acknowledged our perspective and wrote a letter to the editor. The Wire ran its framing as “news.”
On the genital inspection point. You ask why we cited critics who raised that concern when the Wire’s original article didn’t mention it. Because the claim is circulating in public discourse around IL26-638 and is substantively false, which makes it worth addressing. You then note that “genitals” is one of the verification methods and ask whether critics shouldn’t be allowed to raise concerns. Of course they can. But there is a difference between raising concerns and misrepresenting what the law does. IL26-638, Section 3(2), requires “a health examination and consent form or other statement signed by the student’s personal health care provider”. That’s the student’s own doctor, during an already-required sports physical, signing a form. If that’s a “genital inspection,” then every interscholastic athlete in Washington is currently being subjected to one under existing law. We trust you don’t actually believe that.
Finally, to address your final point, three things: 1) our letter to the editor was not a “reported piece.” It was, as the name suggests, a letter to the editor, published on the opinion page, attributed to the four board members of WRC. The distinction between opinion and news content is one of the things we were critiquing the Wire for failing to maintain, so we do appreciate the irony of you not even acknowledging that same distinction in your response.
2) We did say what we believe. We said it clearly, attributed it to ourselves, and supported it with citations to the text of IL26-638, the Wire’s Governing Documents, and national polling data (all of which the Wire comfortably and cowardly got rid of).
3) Dismissing all of our disagreements as operating in bad faith is not an argument. It just shows your incapacity to have one.
Oh, and one more thing, since we’re on the subject of the Wire’s own standards. The Wire’s Governing Documents, under “Responsible Reporting,” state that “stories should include a minimum of three sources and convey diversity of opinion” and that “reporters and/or section editors shall demonstrate exhaustive effort in their pursuit of counterarguments” (p. 19, Governing Documents). The Wire’s article on IL26-638 did not do that. It did not include three diverse sources. It did not demonstrate exhaustive effort in pursuit of counterarguments. It did not convey diversity of opinion. It conveyed one opinion, dressed it up as news, and called it a day. So before you rush to defend the Wire’s journalistic credibility, you might want to actually read the Wire’s own rules, because the Wire apparently hasn’t.
Alum • Mar 11, 2026 at 5:00 pm
Using the word “transgender” in an article title isn’t an issue. The word is partially defined by the idea that someone now identifies with a gender that differs from their assigned sex at birth. That’s a commonly understood definition of the term. Therefore, it’s useless to use language like “biological males” in the title when that can be inferred from the term “transgender girls.” In fact, “biological males” offers less to the reader because it offers no context about how any given person now identifies. This makes your proposed headline, “IL26-638 Would Require Biological Males to Compete in Male Athletic Categories” ludicrous. IL26-638 is not targeting biological males generally, but transgender women specifically. A title that fails to mention the primary reason for a piece of legislation would reflect poorly on the author and the publisher. Just because the Initiative purposefully limits its use of language like “transgender,” doesn’t mean that’s not what it’s targeting. The journalist did a good job of reading not just what’s written in the initiative, but what’s left out and why that might be. Your other proposed headline, “IL26-638 Would Preserve Female-Only Athletic Competition Based on Biological Sex,” also fails to note the key topic of the piece “transgender,” and I’ve already outlined why that’s problematic. Further, you note that “a reasonable or verifiable title would not generate the same emotional response,” yet this title does similar work; apparently that’s okay when it reflects your interests. Do you not think “preserving female-only athletic competition” is free from bias? It appeals to the presumed unfairness of transgender women in women’s sports. It centers preservation, which is key to the idea that American can and should be made great again. Thus, the title aligns with a more conservative agenda and cannot be seen as unbiased reporting.
You cite critics who worry about “genital inspection,” which was not brought up in the original piece. Who are these critics and why bring them up when the Wire didn’t even mention them? Further, you go on to note that biological sex can be identified via three methods, but one of them is, to quote you, “genitals.” Is it really inappropriate for critics to raise concerns, not that inappropriate doctoral procedures WILL happen, but that such initiatives increase the possibility that they MAY happen?
I leave The Whitman Republican Club with an unpretentious and novel proposal: If you don’t want transgender women to compete in women’s sports because you think they aren’t actually women, just say that next time. There’s no need to use a reported piece as a pretext for your political motives.
Kshiteesh (WRC) • Mar 13, 2026 at 6:14 pm
You argue that “transgender girls” is a commonly understood term and therefore neutral. A term being commonly understood does not make it editorially neutral. “Biological males” is also commonly understood. The difference is that “biological males” describes what IL26-638 actually regulates, because IL26-638 does not use the word “transgender” a single time. It uses “biologically male students.” So when the Wire swaps the initiative’s own operative language for an ideologically contested alternative and sticks it in the headline, that’s not reporting. Which, again, was the entire point of our letter.
You say “biological males” offers the reader less context than “transgender girls.” We’d argue the opposite. “Biological males” tells the reader what the law is about: athletic eligibility based on biological sex. “Transgender girls” tells the reader how a subset of those individuals identify, which is relevant to plenty of conversations but is not what IL26-638 legislates. A news headline’s job is to describe what a law does, not to print their understanding f one affected group into the framing of the legislation.
Now, you take issue with our proposed headline, “IL26-638 Would Preserve Female-Only Athletic Competition Based on Biological Sex,” and say it “centers preservation” and “aligns with a more conservative agenda.” We’d encourage you to read IL26-638. Section 1(3) says its purpose is “Protecting the integrity and fairness of women’s interscholastic sports.” Section 1(4) says it “ensures equity, safety, and competitive balance”. The initiative’s own stated purpose is preservation. A headline that reflects the initiative’s stated purpose is reporting. A headline that replaces it with the word “ban,” a word that appears nowhere in the text, is advocacy. If accurately paraphrasing a law “aligns with a conservative agenda,” that tells you something about the law, not about the headline.
Also, by your own logic, the Wire’s headline, which characterizes the law as a “ban” and uses the term “transgender girls,” aligns with a progressive agenda. The difference is that we acknowledged our perspective and wrote a letter to the editor. The Wire ran its framing as “news.”
On the genital inspection point. You ask why we cited critics who raised that concern when the Wire’s original article didn’t mention it. Because the claim is circulating in public discourse around IL26-638 and is substantively false, which makes it worth addressing. You then note that “genitals” is one of the verification methods and ask whether critics shouldn’t be allowed to raise concerns. Of course they can. But there is a difference between raising concerns and misrepresenting what the law does. IL26-638, Section 3(2), requires “a health examination and consent form or other statement signed by the student’s personal health care provider”. That’s the student’s own doctor, during an already-required sports physical, signing a form. If that’s a “genital inspection,” then every interscholastic athlete in Washington is currently being subjected to one under existing law. We trust you don’t actually believe that.
Finally, to address your final point, three things: 1) our letter to the editor was not a “reported piece.” It was, as the name suggests, a letter to the editor, published on the opinion page, attributed to the four board members of WRC. The distinction between opinion and news content is one of the things we were critiquing the Wire for failing to maintain, so we do appreciate the irony of you not even acknowledging that same distinction in your response.
2) We did say what we believe. We said it clearly, attributed it to ourselves, and supported it with citations to the text of IL26-638, the Wire’s Governing Documents, and national polling data (all of which the Wire comfortably and cowardly got rid of).
3) Dismissing all of our disagreements as operating in bad faith is not an argument. It just shows your incapacity to have one.
Oh, and one more thing, since we’re on the subject of the Wire’s own standards. The Wire’s Governing Documents, under “Responsible Reporting,” state that “stories should include a minimum of three sources and convey diversity of opinion” and that “reporters and/or section editors shall demonstrate exhaustive effort in their pursuit of counterarguments” (p. 19, Governing Documents). The Wire’s article on IL26-638 did not do that. It did not include three diverse sources. It did not demonstrate exhaustive effort in pursuit of counterarguments. It did not convey diversity of opinion. It conveyed one opinion, dressed it up as news, and called it a day. So before you rush to defend the Wire’s journalistic credibility, you might want to actually read the Wire’s own rules, because the Wire apparently hasn’t.
Alumna • Mar 10, 2026 at 4:42 am
You’re a bunch of losers. Be ashamed.
John Prager • Mar 8, 2026 at 4:04 am
This is wild for your first publication