The Washington Post accused Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., of "refus[ing] to acknowledge that some transgender men can get pregnant," in an article published late Tuesday.
Politics writer Mariana Alfaro broke down a now viral exchange between Hawley and University of California at Berkley law professor Khiara Bridges over the question of who can get pregnant, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the impact of the end of Roe v. Wade.
‘TRANSPHOBIC’ SEN. JOSH HAWLEY ‘SCHOOLED’ BY BERKELEY LAW PROFESSOR, LEFT-WING OUTLETS INSIST
During the hearing, Hawley asked Prof. Bridges to unpack what she meant when she used the phrase, "people with the capacity for pregnancy." After more queries, the professor accused the senator of employing a "transphobic" line of questioning that would lead to "violence" against transgender people.
The paper gave credence to Bridges' statements that seemed unwilling to say only biological women could get pregnant. Instead, Alfaro said Hawley had "refused to acknowledge transgender people," by not recognizing Bridges using "gender-neutral" language.
"Some experts on gender and reproductive rights use gender-neutral terms including ‘people with a capacity for pregnancy’ and ‘pregnant people’ when talking about these issues, which help illustrate that not only cisgender women have the ability for pregnancy — and cisgender women aren’t the only ones impacted by decisions to restrict reproductive health care," the reporter began.
She continued, "Hawley, however, doubled down on his questioning, asking Bridges what the core of her argument was. Bridges then told the senator his line of questioning was transphobic, because he was refusing to acknowledge transgender people."
SEN. HAWLEY DEBATING BERKELEY LAW PROFESSOR OVER PREGNANT MEN BLOWS UP TWITTER
The way the paper framed the exchange provoked a flurry of mockery online.
Executive editor for the Free Beacon, Brent Scher, advocated for a "total and complete shutdown" of the paper "until we figure out what is going on."
Contributing editor for the Spectator, Stephen L. Miller, called the paper "irreparably broken," in a tweet.
While others like The Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy expressed skepticism over the paper's suggestion.