Sarah Wasko / Media Matters 

One of The New York Times’ top theater critics had to apologize after his review of the Broadway musical Head Over Heels purposefully misgendered a nonbinary character played by a trans actress, demonstrating the need for journalists and writers to better understand how to cover these communities.

Ben Brantley, the Times’ longtime co-chief theater critic, wrote a review of the new musical, which is based on the music of The Go-Go’s and which features “the first trans woman actress to create a principal role on Broadway.” The groundbreaking role, Pythio, is currently being played by former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant Peppermint, and the character identifies as nonbinary and uses the pronoun “they.” According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, nonbinary people “don’t neatly fit into the categories of ‘man’ or ‘woman,’ or ‘male’ or ‘female.’” In his review, Brantley unnecessarily mocked the character’s preferred pronouns, writing that another character found “himself strangely drawn to her -- I mean them”:

These assorted role reversals are overseen by the wise oracle Pythio (Peppermint, a contestant on “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” described in the program as “the first transgender woman to create a principal role” on Broadway). Pythio identifies as “nonbinary plural.” Dametas (Tom Alan Robbins), the King’s viceroy and father of Mopsa, finds himself strangely drawn to her — I mean them. 

LGBTQ advocates and journalists criticized Brantley’s language and successfully called on the Times to make changes to the piece:

Hey @hellerNYT this is seriously problematic. And really hurtful. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it’s okay to demean people’s existence. Fix this. People are dying because we are seen as fake. But we are real. Make a correction and apologize. pic.twitter.com/5t0LXmMjOY

— Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) July 27, 2018

If the NYT is going to pay @nytbenbrantley to write about culture, maybe they should actually make sure he knows something about culture before he nonchalantly tosses totally unnecessary transphobia into his reviews. https://t.co/27kdTmMl2x pic.twitter.com/Np1TQW1kM9

— Zack Ford (@ZackFord) July 27, 2018

The NYT should have standards for addressing 2018 issues if they’re going to cover them. To fail to do so is to fail to do their jobs. They failed in publishing Ben Brantley’s piece tonight as it was written. The whole thing is embarrassing — to him, to the artists, to the NYT.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) July 27, 2018

Following criticism of the review, Brantley issued an apology and edited the report to remove the offensive language:

Here is Ben Brantley's response to the conversation surrounding his review of “Head Over Heels” https://t.co/48Xr2xgOjK. We are updating the review to reflect some of our readers' concerns now. pic.twitter.com/3SjcC1qAuk

— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) July 27, 2018

Bentley’s review and subsequent apology demonstrate the need for writers and journalists to be intentional in the way they cover the trans and gender-nonconforming community. The Associated Press Stylebook has recommended the use of “they” when referring to nonbinary people as a best practice for journalists for more than a year, and LGBTQ advocacy organization GLAAD has written that misgendering in reports can cause the community to see “a part of themselves erased and devalued.” This kind of reporting stigmatizes an already marginalized community and can have negative impacts on its members' self-confidence and mental health. The community experiences disproportionately high levels of discrimination and violence, and homicides against trans folks spiked in 2017.

This is the second time in a little over a month that the Times came under fire for publishing anti-LGBTQ content. On June 25, the paper published a homophobic cartoon video and accompanying opinion piece depicting President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in a same-sex relationship and featuring an extended scene of their tongues intertwining while riding a unicorn through rainbows. The video drew criticism for mocking same-sex relationships and making LGBTQ people the punchline of a joke. Unlike with Bentley’s review, the Times defended the cartoon and claimed that the filmmaker “would have used the same format to satirize Trump’s infatuation with another politician, regardless of sexuality or gender.”