Thanks for this in depth analysis. Jamie Reed's false claims have done a lot of damage to families who are trying their best to get appropriate care for their trans adolescents. When she broke into the news cycle with allegations that Center staff were unethically rushing patients into transition, it seems like many or most people just believed her uncritically.

When the New York Times published the in depth article you cite, they provided some balance, but compared to much more in-depth reporting by regional newspapers, the Times article is inadequate to the point of being misleading.

Is anti-trans ideology among the Times editorial staff to blame? I don't know, but the Times consider themselves to be a national newspaper of record, delivering the highest possible quality journalism, so it's passing strange that two much smaller newspapers did much more thorough reporting on the Center — reporting that discredits Reed (by the weight of much evidence) much more thoroughly than the Times' reporting, which look shoddy or sketchy by comparison.

Those regional newspapers are as likely if not more likely to be staffed by people who question or oppose treatment for trans youth, so I'm left to wonder how they were able to dig so much more deeply into the story than the Times did, and then to draw informed conclusions that are much more critical of Reed's claims.

I'm also left wondering why the Times didn't refer to that regional journalism in their own reporting. It was available to the Times before they went to press, and Times editorial policies allow (and their articles frequently include) citations of reputable third-party journalism.

So now we're left with a situation where the national "paper of record" only did half a job exploring this important story, but will undoubtedly be cited over and over again on the issue — leading people to an article that is deficient to the point of being highly misleading, which many will likely believe is the last word on the subject.