I don't know why AP writer Steve Karnowski chose to make restoring women's rights sound like a silly thing that attacks trans athletes

I asked, but answer came there none

I chose AP sports writer Steve Karnowski, above, to question about his story on the decision some state high school sports associations are making strictly because he is based in Minnesota. I could have chosen virtually any other AP writer, indeed, any mainstream media chairwarmer with a byline, because, to a person, they are abusing language to hide women’s rights violations, and twist them such that the men who violate women’s rights are the victims. Steve is by no means the only practitioner of propaganda, he’s the handiest. I’ve pasted my email with questions and the relevant parts of Steve’s article below. I encourage you to first read Steve’s story, which reached thousands, if not millions, of readers, and is representative of anything you’ll read, or have read in the past five years, in any major media. To an article, thousands and thousands of articles with millions of views, have framed allowing “transgender athletes” to participate in women’s sports as a human right. Ask yourself if, as a not particularly interested or informed reader, you would understand this means it’s a human right for men to participate in women’s sports. Would you understand that the Executive Order merely restores women’s rights and returns sports to the completely logical, uncontroversial, 100% inclusive way they have existed for at least a century? Ask yourself if, at any time in the past 25 years, journalists like Steve had simply used correct language—men who identify as women demand to compete in women’s sports and use women’s locker rooms—that would have changed the course of history.

Journalism is nothing if not choices—what story to pursue, how to frame it, what sources to include, what words to use. I wanted to understand Steve’s choices.

Hi Steve--

I'm a freelance journalist working on an article for The Female Category. I have some questions about the article you wrote regarding some state high school athletic associations' decision to defy the Executive Order barring males from female sport. I see that it's been widely distributed, appearing in AP News, the Star Tribune, and MPR, just at first glance. I will be critiquing the article but I want to give you the opportunity to explain why you chose the language, the framing, and one of the sources you did. I'm happy to chat by phone if you'd rather, otherwise, following are my questions.

Steve’s lede: “Minnesota’s governing body for high school sports says it will follow state law — not President Donald Trump’s executive order — and continue to allow transgender athletes to compete in prep athletics.”

First, I wonder why you describe the topic of discussion as “to allow transgender athletes to compete in prep athletics"? Why not use the Executive Order title which is Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports? The EO bars student athletes who are male from female sports. It says nothing about transgender athletes. In fact, all students with trans identities are and always have been welcome to participate in their sex category. Why did you not make that clear in your article?

“Trump signed the order on Wednesday, giving the federal government wide latitude to pull federal funding from entities that “deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities” by allowing transgender athletes to participate.”

You did use the language from the EO once, noting that federal funding can be pulled from entities that "deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities," but why did you fail to explain what causes that unfairness? Because you omitted the central point and the title of the EO, that men in women's sports causes unfairness, you imply that allowing transgender students to participate is what causes unfairness. That’s misleading and inaccurate. Transgender students do not cause unfairness. Women or girls who identify as male are considered transgender, but they don’t cause unfairness, regardless of whether they participate in men’s or women’s sports. Men cause unfairness in women’s sports. Why did you not describe the issue accurately so readers would understand that?

Why did you choose not to focus on how women's and girls' rights are violated by allowing male athletes to compete on female teams? That's the reason the EO was written, and also gives perspective to the decision by some states to defy that EO. As a journalist, you know there are at least two angles to every story—why did you leave women's and girls' rights out?

“‘My general reaction is just sadness and anger,” said Sawyer Totten, a transgender athlete who competed in cross-country skiing at his Burlington, Vermont, high school. “To see the NCAA almost immediately change its rules to comply with Trump‘s order and try and pass it quietly was sad and heartbreaking.’ Totten, who started cross-country skiing as a 2-year-old, said competing on his high school team gave him “a sense of belonging and it gave me a place where I could just be myself. My coaches and my teammates were all super supportive of me and I never had any issues when it came to competing,” he said. “That was my experience as a trans male athlete. No two trans people’s journeys are the same.’”

Big question—why did you choose to interview a no-longer-high-schooler from Vermont, a state that is not one you mentioned? Why did you not make clear that Sawyer Totten is a female who identifies as male? Totten's sex is extremely relevant because the EO is about males in female sport; Totten is not male. Totten, and all females regardless of their identity or sexual orientation, benefit from the EO because, being female, they depend on female-only sports for fairness and opportunity. If readers knew that Totten is female, it would also explain why Totten's high school experience in skiing was so pleasant and controversy-free. If Totten competed according to her gender identity, on the boys' team, she brought sports disadvantage. Because she's female. Why did you not explain this absolutely critical point? Without context of Totten's sex (which, again, is the reason the EO was written), using this source is both irrelevant and misleading.

The California Interscholastic Federation said it complies with a state law that “permits students to participate in school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with the student’s gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the student’s records,” spokeswoman Rebecca Brutlag said in an email Friday.

And to the point of sources, why did you not talk with any of the many many high school girls who have lost opportunities, fairness, and privacy in the locker room to boys who identify as girls? For example, why did you not talk with the girls who are suing the California Interscholastic Federation after first being bumped off the varsity team, and then punished for speaking up about it? As a journalist, I'm sure you know that would have added essential information to readers about California's decision to continue to violate girls' rights for the sake of including boys. These girls actually will be affected by the California Interscholastic Federation’s decision, unlike Sawyer Totten.

The number of transgender athletes competing at the high school and college level is believed to be small, but the topic became a campaign issue for Trump last year as he declared his intent to “keep men out of women’s sports.” NCAA President Charlie Baker, a former Massachusetts governor, has said there are fewer than 10 transgender athletes competing in sports under his purview.

Why did you talk about the NCAA's decision to follow the EO when the article was about high schools? And as long as you included the NCAA, why did you not include the NCAA's reason for adopting the EO? Why did you note, apropos of nothing, that numbers of "transgender athletes" (again, this whole discussion is about males, not transgender athletes. It's impossible to write accurately about this topic without being clear about sex) are “believed to be small?” Who believes the numbers to be small? Why include an uncited belief by unknown persons? Why not point out the documented loss of 3,656 women’s victories to men? Why are small numbers relevant to high schools' decision to violate girls' sex-based rights? Can you cite some other instances where athletes who are not eligible for a category are allowed in because their numbers are small? Would that be at the varsity level? Championship level? Since the NCAA does not require athletes to disclose their sex and it has no sex verification procedure, did you ask Charlie Baker how he knew there were less than 10 males in female sports? Since small numbers of trans-identified male athletes seems relevant to your article, did you ask anyone what the threshold number for males in female sports is? Why not?

These are good faith questions. As a fellow journalist committed to reporting of facts, I truly want to understand why you made the choices you did. I appreciate your time and consideration.

Steve did not respond.