The column by Candace Buckner blames Cunningham for creating a “circus” and says that she is a distraction from the game due to her public stance. So, she is now “too combustible, her takes too “turbulent” to play basketball.
Of course, if she supported transplayers, she would presumably not be combustible but admirable.
Notably, the Times does not view those who have attacked Cunningham and her fans as too “combustible,” including coaches wearing opposing slogans and statements in favor of biological males in women’s sports. The New York Times itself reported that almost 80% of citizens hold the same position as Cunningham.
The Oct. 6 column called on Indiana not to renew Cunningham’s contract after two seasons when she becomes a free agent because she is “too combustible.”
However, the Times does not believe that those coaches and players speaking out in favor of such inclusion are “too combustible.”
There was no call for sacking figures like Storm co-owner Celeste Keaton, who reportedly yelled profanities at girls who were simply supporting women in sports and Cunningham.
Nor was there a call to sack Minnesota Lynx head coach Cheryl Reeve for wearing a T-shirt supporting trans players in a game against the Indiana Fever and Cunningham.
Liberal sentiments are never combustible for the Times. The newspaper ran a long line of columns supporting Colin Kaepernick in his kneeling protests during games. Conversely, columns attacked former player Enes Kanter Freedom for wearing a T-Shirt reading “WOMAN noun. adult human female.”
For most of us, the hatred for Cunningham is baffling. These athletes have a unique perspective on this controversy that can help inform the debate on both sides. We should welcome the insights of athletes for and against transgender players in this national discussion.
Instead, Cunningham has been subject to the same hateful, unhinged attacks that we have seen on other influential figures such as J.K. Rowling. There is no room for civil debate or any difference of opinion.
The purpose of these campaigns is obvious. Even with the vast majority of citizens supporting Cunningham’s position, press and pundits want to deter others from publicly taking such positions. It is designed to chill speech and deter dissent.
On Friday’s episode of “No Hesitation with Sophie Cunningham & Drew Hanlen,” Hanlen correctly called the piece an “absolute hate piece.” Cunningham responded even more succinctly to the Times with “suck it.”
I am not concerned for Cunningham, who has shown great courage and steadfastness in the face of these critics. Rather, it was the latest evidence that the Times has changed little in fueling the mob and canceling opposing voices.
The Times has thrilled the extreme left with its signature relativism in defending any abuse on the left, from looting to murder. It has continued to feature violent extremists as political attacks rise around the country.
The same newspaper that fired editors and denounced Sen. Tom Cotton for his NYT column quelling violent protests would go on to print individuals who have said that they are ok with killing conservatives or capitalists.
Just before the anniversary of the Cotton controversy, the New York Times published a column by University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.
After canceling Sen. Cotton, the Times had no problem with publishing the views of a Chinese figure called the enforcer of Beijing in the crushing of protests.
The New York Times is undeterred because its readers seem to value the very hypocrisy revealed in these controversies. They can rely on the Times to offer spins and deflections to relieve them of any self-examination after tragedies like the Kirk assassination.
While denouncing disinformation, the Times has embraced false narratives and continues to publish distorted historical claims.
As with its cancellation of Sen. Cotton, the Times shows that the left is ready to resume the prior campaign of cancel campaigns and censorship of opposing views. That includes an athlete who merely voiced a view in favor of female athletes that is shared by roughly 80 percent of the country. It is not shared by the Times or its viewers, so (once again) Cunningham must go.
Opposing viewpoints are intolerable to many on the left, and the editors of the Times are once again rationalizing the worst impulses of American politics.