The story is largely accurate, presenting a credible account of the EEOC's policy shift. It accurately reports the agency's deprioritization of gender identity-related discrimination cases, corroborated by the accounts of unnamed EEOC employees and civil rights groups. The article accurately references the Trump administration's executive order on gender and how it impacts EEOC's approach, aligning with public statements by Acting Chair Andrea Lucas. However, the reliance on anonymous sources for the meeting details introduces a degree of uncertainty, as these claims are not officially confirmed by the EEOC, which declined to comment.

The article presents a perspective that is critical of the EEOC's policy shift, primarily highlighting the potential negative impacts on transgender and nonbinary workers. It includes criticism from former EEOC commissioner Chai Feldblum and civil rights activists. However, the article could provide more balance by including perspectives from EEOC officials or supporters of the policy change. While it mentions Andrea Lucas's priorities, it lacks a direct response from her or other EEOC representatives addressing the criticism.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, presenting complex legal and bureaucratic issues in an accessible manner. It effectively explains the implications of the EEOC's policy shift and the relevant legal context. The language is straightforward, and the narrative follows a logical flow, making it easy for readers to understand the main points. However, the inclusion of more direct quotes and specific examples could enhance clarity by providing concrete evidence to support the claims.

The article relies on anonymous EEOC employees for key details, which affects source credibility. While these sources provide insider insights, their anonymity raises questions about reliability. The story also cites former EEOC commissioner Chai Feldblum and civil rights activists, who are credible sources, but lacks direct quotes or statements from current EEOC officials. The inclusion of official EEOC data on discrimination charges adds credibility, but the lack of on-the-record statements from the EEOC is a notable gap.

The article provides some context about the EEOC's policy shift and its potential conflict with the Supreme Court's Bostock v. Clayton County ruling. However, it lacks transparency regarding the methodology of obtaining the information, particularly concerning the anonymous sources. While it discloses that the employees requested anonymity, it does not explain the process of verifying their claims. The article could improve transparency by clarifying how it corroborated the information provided by the anonymous sources.