Adjudication
1757: Complainant / The Daily Telegraph (June 2019)
Document
Type: Complaints
Outcome:
Adjudications
The
Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an
article published by The Daily Telegraph on 13 September 2017 by The Daily
Telegraph headed in print “An identity crisis” and online “WHAT MADNESS CAN
JUSTIFY MUTILATING OUR CHILDREN” and a Podcast on 16 April 2018 titled “Ryan T.
Anderson joins Miranda Devine live on gender identity”, included as a link in
the online article.
The
article referred to a “pernicious social fad for transgenderism in children
which has been embraced by an activist subset of the medical profession” and
stated that “new laws in Victoria can punish therapists who oppose
transitioning children” and “hundreds of children who say they are trapped in
the body of the opposite sex are being referred to gender clinics in Australia,
with numbers tripling in the past three years at one Sydney clinic.” It
included comments by a named University Professor, who it described as “one of
the few pediatricians courageous enough to speak out against this fashion for
‘child surgical abuse’”. It quoted the Professor saying that “Prepubertal
children have no idea about sexuality and choices of procreation afterwards”
and “We’re messing with their limbic system and expecting them to make this
great evaluation.”
The
article went on to say: “Yet there is no medical evidence to justify the
epidemic of transgender kids. No evidence that changing sex will reduce the
incidence of self-harm or suicide or lessen the impact of other associated
mental states such as depression or autism.” The article concluded: “When they
grow up, surely these children have grounds for a class action against the
hospitals and drug companies which have mounted such a monstrous assault on
their developing bodies.”
The
podcast was referred to as an interview with Ryan T. Anderson to “discuss
recent attempts in Australia and the United States to introduce gender theory
into anti-bullying programs”. The introduction said: “Children are being given
puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and having their breasts removed at the
age of 14 and 15 with the permission of the Family Court. Yet there is little
medical evidence to justify this experimentation on children, no evidence that
these hormones are safe to be used on kids, no evidence of any reduction in
self-harm or suicide.”
Following
a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the
article and podcast complied with its Standards of Practice. In particular, the
Council sought comment on the statement that there is “no evidence” that
“cross-sex hormones are safe to be used on kids, no evidence of any reduction
in self-harm or suicide” or “that changing sex will reduce the incidence of
self-harm or suicide”. The Council referred the publication to a number of
articles identified by the complainant, including one entitled “Endocrine
Treatment of Transsexual Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice
Guideline” (2009).
In
addition the Council sought comment on whether the article’s statement that
“new laws in Victoria can punish therapists who oppose transitioning their
children”, given the provisions of the new Victorian Health Complaints Act, and
on the descriptions of medical procedures as “mutilation” and “child surgical
abuse” and a “monstrous assault on their developing bodies” were a breach of
the Council’s Standards.
The
publication said the article and the content of the podcast were clearly
identified as opinion and the author was entitled to express her opinion
concerning the medical practices administered to children and adolescents in
gender clinics. It said that in making comments, particularly those concerning
there being “no evidence” of the matters referred to, the author relied on
interviews with medical experts in the field, widespread reading of the
scientific literature and anecdotal evidence of parents and people who regret
childhood hormone or surgical interventions, as well as the experiences of a transgender
friend of the author. The publication identified a number of medical articles
as relevant.
The
publication said the Victorian Health Complaints Act is designed to prevent
conversion therapy of sexual minorities and to provide for a complaints process
about health service provision.
It
said the columnist was entitled to express her views on the appropriateness of
how sections of the medical profession are treating children who they believe
are transgender and to express her view that it is wrong for a child as young
as 15 years to be receiving medically unnecessary double mastectomies.
Conclusion
The
Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require that
publications take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate
and not misleading and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion
(General Principle 1), and presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and
that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate
factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). If the
material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or unfair or
unbalanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate
remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General
Principles 2 and 4). The Standards of Practice also require that
publications take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially
to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or to a substantial risk to
health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest
(General Principle 6).
The
Council notes that the article and the podcast contain expressions of the
author’s opinion. However, the Council considers they also contain material
presented as facts, including the statement in the article that there is “No
evidence that changing sex will reduce the incidence of self-harm or suicide or
lessen the impact of other associated mental states such as depression or
autism” and in the podcast that there is “no evidence that these hormones are
safe to be used on kids, no evidence of any reduction in self-harm or
suicide”.
The
Council accepts that it is open to an author to question the appropriateness of
particular medical treatments and procedures. There may be conflicting evidence
in support of, or opposition to, such treatments which the Council will not be
in a position to resolve. However the statements that there was “no evidence”
was not qualified in any way, such as asserting that there was no reliable
evidence. The Council notes that the publication did not rely on any particular
article as supporting a statement that there was “no evidence”. The Council
considers that, given the existence of medical guidelines which recommend
various treatments and procedures to assist transitioning children and
adolescents, the statement that there was “no evidence” was made in such
absolute terms that it was inaccurate and misleading. The Council
considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure these
statements were accurate and not misleading.
Accordingly,
the Council finds that the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3 in
these respects. This conclusion does not amount to a finding on the
appropriateness of the medical treatments available.
As
to the new laws in Victoria, the Council considers that the broad term
‘therapists’ could include persons who, if providing a general health service,
may fall under the remit of the new Victorian Health Complaints Act and
therefore be subject to penalties under the Act. The Council is satisfied on
the material available to it that the statement “... new laws in Victoria can
punish therapists who oppose transitioning children …” is not inaccurate or
misleading. Accordingly, the Council does not consider that General Principles
1 and 3 were breached in this respect.
As
the publication was not approached for a correction or right of reply, the
Council considers there was no breach of General Principles 2 and 4.
The
Council accepts that the columnist’s descriptions of medical procedures as
“mutilation”, “child surgical abuse” and a “monstrous assault on their
developing bodies” were likely to cause offence and distress amongst those
undergoing such treatment and amongst their families, and were also likely to
cause or exacerbate prejudice. However, the Council considers there is public
interest in vigorous public debate about the issue, even when an argument is
expressed in very strong terms, as is the case here. The Council considers that
to the extent there was substantial offence, distress and prejudice, it was
justified in the public interest. Accordingly, General Principle 6 was not
breached.
This
Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.
Publications
must take reasonable steps to:
General
Principle 1 – Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is
accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as
opinion.
General
Principle 2 – Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if
published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.
General
Principle 3 – Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable
fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on
significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.
General
Principle 4 – Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair
opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is
reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.
General
Principle 6 - Avoid causing or contributing materiality to substantial offence,
distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing
so is sufficiently in the public interest.
