adysnschachtel316-jpnks

All Slides presents three different articles from three different sides of politics about allowing states to ban transgender females from playing on female sports teams at the high school and collegiate level. BBC presents the article from the center, NBC presents the article from the left, and The Daily Wire presents the article from the right. Even though all of the articles are talking about the same topic, each one explains it and views it in different ways with different opinions. Not only are just the views different but the diction and focus on different aspects of the policy is what is truly fascinating.

While the articles differ in overall political view, there are still some similarities between the three articles. Such as the way in which all three talk about the Supreme Court’s ruling about the policy dictating how states may choose not to allow transgender women to play on female sports teams. Both discuss the relevance in connection to the policy being in favor of West Virginia and Idaho; along with this, both also discuss the two legal scenarios being aspects of the 14th Amendment and Title IX. It is important that each article explains that this is a state law not a federal law, meaning that each state is allowed to decide their own rules and regulations when it comes to transgender participation in sport.

(Image from BBC article)

Starting with the NBC News article, it primarily focuses on the rights and feelings of the transgender women rather than the rights and feelings of biological women or the protection for them that The Daily Wire article primarily focuses on. The NBC article talks briefly about how students both biological male and female along with transgenders fought against this policy to try to further support the LGBTQ+ community and movement. The article itself lays out clearly that supporting this policy will further lead to a dangerous ideology of transphobia across the United States; and how that leads to transgender females being put in dangerous situations. For the readers, this article shows that the focus and importance is placed on the transgender women and girl athletes.

On the complete opposite end, The Daily Wire plants its focus and importance completely on the biological women athletes. This article truly focuses on the fairness that the policy upholds and creates. The Daily Wire uses former college female athletes, such as Riley Gaines, to help explain why this policy is so important for feminism and biological female athletes today. This policy is referred to as a “landmark decision” by The Daily Wire; this language is chosen in order for the article to make their perspective on the policy known. There is a clear difference in perspective between The Daily Wire article and the NBC News article. One clearly stands with the transgender women athletes while the other clearly stands with the biological women athletes. It would be easy and is honestly super common for someone to claim that one of these articles over the other is way more enthusiastic about a specific side compared to the other; however, I believe that both articles show equally strong beliefs. Meaning both are extremely one sided, which was to be expected.

Now for the center article, BBC News has a more balanced stance on the policy. Starting off with the title of the BBC article, it is very neutral, it is simply explaining the policy without distinguishing a specific perspective. A cool thing that the BBC article integrates is ideas and views from both differing sides of the policy. It includes an attorney that speaks on the fairness, like included in The Daily Wire article; and it also includes a president from a human rights organization speaking on the harmful attitudes towards transgender women and how they are being expected to just deal with it. Another thing that I thought was pretty cool about this article was the inclusion of history about the long sought out debate about transgender athletes; for example, including history of previous arguments or policies related to this one.

After reading three different articles from three different areas of the political spectrum, I now truly appreciate the right of freedom of speech. I think that it is awesome how different people are allowed and encouraged to share their opinions, even if they are extremely controversial. It is also interesting that even though the way in which the policy was described in each article was different, the general storyline was all the same. Overall the things that shaped the strikingly different perspectives was the diction, and different sources used by each article.