He says that like the United States doesn't have a very large Black population and a huge problem with racism that results in tremendous economic disparity, police brutality, etc.

He says that like talking about race is a negative — I guess meaning that reporters should close their eyes and not see racism.

There's no way you can fairly use "viewpoint neutrality" to suggest that talking about America's problems is something we shouldn't be doing, particularly at a national news agency partly funded by the taxpayer.

At least it seems like NPR is trying to hold out for decency, but I'm not shocked that major news outlets are jumping on the anti-LGBTQ train. The New York Times, for example, has a long history of pushing anti-queer sentiment. They've always had to be dragged, seemingly kicking and screaming, into more liberal points of view.

I've personally experienced their elitist focus from the days of untreatableHIV/AIDS, to gays in the military, to same-sex marriage. The Times seems always willing to publish "experts" who explain in detail why equality and basic human decency will destroy society or at least ruin your day.

I say "elitist" because the newspaper's readership is primarily made up of a small, highly educated, prosperous elite — an informal but very definite American upper/ruling class.

The Times will print what the elite want to read, and if conservative viewpoints becomes significantly popular among the elite, the Times has never hesitated to go there.

They're a reflection of the ruling class.

With anti-trans hysteria exploding right now, don't expect objectivity and integrity from Times editors.

I just hope that sentiment dies down. I just hope people stop their senseless panic and stop trying to force queer people to behave the way they want them to behave.

But so long as bullies and bigots try to destroy liberty and free choice, expect that members of the elite who share that bullying mindset will carry bullhorns stamped, "NYT."