In February 2020, Chelsea Mitchell and three other elite Connecticut high school track athletes filed a lawsuit on the basis that allowing transgender women — who are biologically male — to compete in girls’ sports violates Title IX.
Recently, USA Today published an opinion piece by Mitchell explaining and defending her position that forcing girls to compete against biological males in sports is ultimately anti-fairness. And she makes a powerful case:
It’s February 2020. I’m crouched at the starting line of the high school girls’ 55-meter indoor race. This should be one of the best days of my life. I’m running in the state championship, and I’m ranked the fastest high school female in the 55-meter dash in the state. I should be feeling confident. I should know that I have a strong shot at winning.
Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I’ve done to maximize my performance, might not be enough, simply because there’s a transgender runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage.
I won that race, and I’m grateful. But time after time, I have lost. I’ve lost four women’s state championship titles, two all-New England awards, and numerous other spots on the podium to transgender runners. I was bumped to third place in the 55-meter dash in 2019, behind two transgender runners. With every loss, it gets harder and harder to try again.
That’s a devastating experience. It tells me that I’m not good enough; that my body isn’t good enough; and that no matter how hard I work, I am unlikely to succeed, because I’m a woman.
Recommended
Do yourselves a favor and read the whole thing. Well, you can sort of read the whole thing. See, USA Today made some changes to Mitchell’s original piece:
So, what, exactly, did Mitchell say that violated USA Today’s standards and style guidelines? What language did she use that was so hurtful?
.@USATODAY published our client Chelsea Mitchell’s opinion about the unfairness she experienced being forced to compete against male athletes. But after backlash from the woke mob, editors unilaterally changed Chelsea’s words & called them “hurtful language.” 1/3 pic.twitter.com/tAtzrZgPzt
— Christiana Holcomb (@ChristianaADF) May 26, 2021
What was the "hurtful language" that editors deleted from Chelsea's opinion piece three days after publication? The word "male." 2/3
— Christiana Holcomb (@ChristianaADF) May 26, 2021
Here’s the portion of Mitchell’s piece we excerpted above, as originally written, without USA Today’s little fixes:
It’s February 2020. I’m crouched at the starting line of the high school girls’ 55-meter indoor race. This should be one of the best days of my life. I’m running in the state championship, and I’m ranked the fastest high school female in the 55-meter dash in the state. I should be feeling confident. I should know that I have a strong shot at winning.
Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I’ve done to maximize my performance, might not be enough, simply because there’s a runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage: a male body.
I won that race, and I’m grateful. But time after time, I have lost.
I’ve lost four women’s state championship titles, two all-New England awards, and numerous other spots on the podium to male runners. I was bumped to third place in the 55-meter dash in 2019, behind two male runners. With every loss, it gets harder and harder to try again.
That’s a devastating experience. It tells me that I’m not good enough; that my body isn’t good enough; and that no matter how hard I work, I am unlikely to succeed, because I’m a woman.
USA Today violated its principles to appease the mob. This blatant censorship violates the trust we place in media to be honest brokers of public debate.
Chelsea’s experience & viewpoint matters. That’s why we’re posting her original piece here https://t.co/bs6lRIxJq0. 3/3
— Christiana Holcomb (@ChristianaADF) May 26, 2021
If you want to know how Mitchell feels authentically, you should probably read that version instead.
@USATODAY if the word male was a direct quote from her, why on earth would you change or omit it? You have heard of quotation marks haven’t you?
— Ampzilla (@Terraphant) May 27, 2021
Apparently editorial malpractice isn’t in violation of USA Today’s standards and style guidelines. Go figure.
Outrageous. @usatoday changed Mitchell's words, post-publication, on the grounds that the word "male" is hurtful.
The activists know well that Mitchell can't make her argument without that word.
Shame on the useful idiots of USAToday.
If only they had half Mitchell's courage. https://t.co/Llk9Si2w3z
— Abigail Shrier (@AbigailShrier) May 27, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member