Yes.

(EDIT: Looks like I was wrong, the NYT became more committed to anti-trans rhetoric around 2022 according to this interview with a trans ex-editor of the NYT.)

the headline might be better phrased as "Does the NYT not feel concern they are enabling the genocide of trans people", because I doubt the NYT has specific ideological commitments to the anti-trans movement as much as it is just a corporate sell-out of a paper with a history of doing whatever the rich / wealthy / powerful want it to do, and in this case that involves sometimes publishing anti-trans op-eds and trying to pass it off as debate or a liberal marketplace of ideas.

I'm not sure the NYT drips in animus against trans people as much as it just does not take its moral responsibility seriously. But to be honest, the NYT has never been very serious or concerned about its moral responsibilities, having a long history of publishing pieces that have supported Nazism, US imperialism like Latin American coups and the invasion of Iraq, etc. - it has often been a paper where the style of reaction popular with the elites at a given time has had a home.

And we should probably reflect on the fact that this willingness to harbor and enable the views of the powerful and wealthy are manifest in many institutions of the West, not just newspapers like the NYT, but the academy as well - even going as far back as Plato. And while this doesn't mean it's inherent to philosophy or journalism that it will always be elitist, since there were always other figures like Diogones of Sinope who refused to collaborate with the powerful, and consequently who then never had the kind of lasting influence or legacy that those who collaborated had, it does seem like at least lasting institutions often have ties to immoral but powerful interests.