Trans Teen Athlete's Story Poses Ethical Dilemma

It was a classic spring day at Hayward Field, with thousands of high school athletics and fans gathered in Eugene for the state championship.

The scene was like so many others that had preceded it, but this day became historic – and ugly. Before the final event, the adults rained boos on a preparation runner, an extraordinary and painful moment. In one of Oregon's most liberal cities, the cultural schism around the rights of trans athletes has surfaced.

It's an emotional debate for many, and The Oregonian/OregonLive missed an opportunity to chronicle it. Some have nuanced views on the issue, others are uncompromising, and still others are evolving. But undeniably, the tension is played out in public space. In this case, Hayward Field.

On May 18, the final day of the three-day competition, The Oregonian/OregonLive planned to publish a story about a trans athlete competing in track events. After more booing while on the podium, the 15-year-old decided not to speak to the media.

Our coverage team then decided to focus on other stories, without any cooperation from the central character involved. In retrospect, we should have reported on this unusual situation, including the boos and other contestants' opinions on her victory.

The Oregonian/OregonLive knew the athlete would be headed to the state championships. After an earlier victory attracted attention, editors wanted to write about her, but only if we could identify her by name and if she cooperated on the article.

She wouldn't talk to us, but we wrote about how her participation prompted some Oregon lawmakers to get the Oregon School Activities Association to change its rules, under which she legitimately competed.

This article did not identify the athlete by name but focused on political issues. But prepping editor Nik Streng knew the coverage issue would come up nationally and discussed the plans with sports editor Joel Odom.

Before the competition, they understood that the athlete would be speaking to the media after the ceremony and drafted a story planned for their busy weekend. However, the athlete was visibly shaken after the boos. The police even came to escort the winners, who used a different gate that did not allow them to walk long in front of the crowd. There would be no interview, after all.

Odom and Streng discussed the unexpected turn of events, scrapped the planned article and moved on to myriad other storylines from the day's competition. They feared that drawing attention to the incident would do more harm than good.

But there was already a burning spotlight on the moment, which exploded on social media.

Conservative media and other commentators highlighted the girl's victory, and readers rightfully wondered where our coverage was going. Some were really curious; others had a strong point of view.

One letter writer, who advocates for gender-segregated women's sports competitions, argued that the competition was inherently unfair and criticized us for ignoring the information.

“Pretending that this injustice does not exist by not reporting it, that this will somehow protect children who identify as trans, is deeply flawed and contrary to your guidelines as journalists,” she wrote.

Student-athletes also gave their views in a commentary.

“State policy allowing trans athletes to compete based on their asserted gender does not promote the fairness in competition that school sports otherwise attempt to achieve,” two female athletes wrote for our Opinion section. “On the contrary, it is unfair for all biological females to compete.”

In our press meetings after the weekend's championships, we talked at length about what happened, and many journalists felt we needed to recognize this historic moment.

Sports columnist Bill Oram weighed in with a column, making a strong argument criticizing adults for booing the 15-year-old winner. Unlike journalists, columnists give their opinion.

We have once again decided not to identify the athlete by name. It's unusual. This decision goes against my usual journalistic instinct. This is a case where journalistic values ​​(reporting the facts) collide with the reality that our reporting can contribute to harming a young person.

I consider it a position of principle not to contribute to putting a target on his back. Others might see this as evidence of my bias.

Applying news judgment is part of the editing process: what stays in, what gets left out. We weighed the potential harm against the news value of including his name.

In the end, I wasn't comfortable naming her. Maybe it was the mom in me, rather than the newspaper editor. I of course knew that people could easily use Google to find the name. I can live with that.

His young age was a factor. We too were teenagers and we remember well the emotions and insecurity of that time. And many of us in the editorial office are parents of teenagers.

The fact that the athlete decided not to make it public, apparently out of fear, was another factor. Some reactions on social media have been deeply disturbing.

Like many of you, I have family members who are part of the LGBT+ community. And we know that trans children are more vulnerable in many ways than cisgender adolescents, those whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth.

We all support coverage of political debates (Streng wrote a Q&A on OSAA rules and we published the commentary that refuted Oram's opinion column).

But we can debate politics and vehemently disagree about what is right, without his name. I understand that many people disagree on how this issue should be handled. But we must all remember that at the center of this particular debate is a child.