USA Today slammed for naming man as a ‘Woman of the Year’

One of America’s biggest newspapers, USA Today, has provoked outrage after naming a biological male among its ‘Women of the Year’ for 2022.

Rachel Levine – a man who lives as a woman – was included on its list for his service as the Assistant Secretary in the Department for Health and Human Services for the Biden administration.

The paper lost more than 300,000 readers, or 62 per cent of its circulation, between April 2019 and April 2021.

‘Affront’

Responding to the move, The Washington Examiner’s Nicole Russell said that USA Today had committed “an affront to women and girls” and stressed that “Levine’s place on this list snatches that spot from a biological woman”.

She added: “The chromosomes within a person’s body remain the same as they were from birth, even when a person has taken cross-sex hormones or has surgery. At a genetic or cellular level, a transgender person remains biologically male or female”.

“USA Today is suggesting that the achievements of Levine, who spent over 50 years living as a biological male, are the same as biological women and their unique attributes.”

What’s even the point of the list anymore? Insulting to women. https://t.co/Rpm8b309Qc

— Abigail Marone 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) March 14, 2022

Criticism also came from Abigail Marone, spokeswoman for Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who tweeted: “What’s even the point of the list anymore? Insulting to women.”

‘Hateful conduct’

But some who raised objections to Levine’s inclusion in the list found themselves censored by social media giant Twitter.

News website The Christian Post found itself suspended after tweeting “USA Today names Rachel Levine, a man, among its ‘Women of the Year’”. The website was informed that the post violated Twitter’s policy, claiming it constituted ‘hateful conduct’.

Political commentators Charlie Kirk and Tucker Carlson also had their accounts suspended for criticising USA Today’s decision.

Online Safety Bill

In the UK, serious concerns have been raised over the implications of the Government’s Online Safety Bill.

The Bill requires tech firms, such as Twitter, to censor content which the Government has explicitly labelled ‘legal but harmful’.

But The Christian Institute has pointed out that this could lead to the widespread censorship of mainstream Christian views, some of which have already been targeted by social media companies.

Head of Research Dave Greatorex said: “Ineffectual free speech duties mean there is a significant risk that – in the eyes of ‘Big Tech’ – conservative, traditional views on marriage, sexuality and gender are seen as valid targets for censorship. We do not want mainstream Christian views to be at the mercy of Silicon Valley wokery.”