It’s taken me a few days to get my thoughts in order after the BBC’s recent documentary on transgender children.
- So little fact, so much insinuation
The BBC should have begun by explaining their choice of Dr Zucker as the focus of this documentary. Zucker’s dismissal and the closure of the service he ran should have been examined carefully to explain why the programme makers decided he can still be referred to as a “leading expert” in the field.
They should have both set out and evaluated the evidence which leads them to set aside Zucker’s disgrace. It is not enough to state that his sacking “sent shockwaves through the scientific community”: the programme makers needed to demonstrate clearly the reasoning behind their allegation that the clinic was closed as a result of “demands” from “trans activists”, rather than as the result of a rational, fair, scientific review.
They should have also explained the actual difference between a gender affirmative approach, and the work of Dr. Zucker. Dr. Zucker was allowed to state that he does not want his therapy to be labelled “reparative”, and no wonder: conversion (or reparation) therapies have been widely denounced (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/01/16/health-experts-condemn-attempts-to-cure-trans-people-in-wake-of-controversial-bbc-documentary/?utm_source=MOBT&utm_medium=Twittermob&Twittermob&utm_campaign=PNMOBT). At no point did we learn what he actually does, so that we could judge for ourselves. It was implied that he has been slandered without any supporting evidence.
Similarly, viewers were not allowed to judge the worth of a gender affirmative approach, because at no point was it explained or described by a practitioner who could be seen as impartial. Instead, it was repeatedly suggested that gender affirmation means one of two things: either bowing to unreasonable childish whims akin to feeding dog-food to a child who says they are a dog (a playground taunt wearily familiar to anyone who has entered an online debate on trans issues); or allowing surgery because a young person wants breasts or a penis “made to order”.
Instead of drawing out the genuine differences, the documentary made it sound as though a gender affirmative approach is one-size-fits-all, medically obsessed, naïve and reckless.
Dr. Spack was almost exclusively shown talking about the use of blockers and hormones, thus strengthening the programme’s implied accusation that gender affirmation is centred around medical treatments. The programme repeatedly and clearly implied that Dr. Zucker stands alone in his belief that each child should be understood “on a case by case basis.”
Dr Zucker was the only person who believed children sometimes want things which are not in their best interests. Dr Zucker is the only one who believes it is “clinically unsophisticated” to suggest that a child who doesn’t transition will automatically take their own life. He is the sole doctor that thinks there may be a range of reasons behind a child’s self-harm…
A truly balanced piece would have made it clear that these are beliefs shared by all reputable clinicians, rather than implying that these were the ideas for which Zucker was sacked.
Other issues, too, were presented as matters of opinion rather than of fact. The 80% desistance rate was stated then refuted, but without any reasoning on either side.
The programme makers must be aware that the 80% desistence rate comes from a study that did not make the crucial distinction between so-called “gender non-conforming” children and children who stated that they were being misgendered. In other words, some of the children who did not grow up to transition had never expressed a desire to do so at any point. So it sheds no light on the issue of trans-children.
The idea that being transgender should not be seen as a mental illness was also debated without reference to relevant research which shows that, when supported to transition, trans children show normal levels of mental health, in contrast to those with dysphoria living as their natal sex (available here http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/02/24/peds.2015-3223). Instead, the argument was undermined by the visuals, which showed the speaker (a priest) in church, insinuating that her argument was a result of blind ‘faith’ rather than reason or science.
- So many false dichotomies
The debate was framed consistently as involving impartial, scientific “experts” versus biased and uniformed “activists”. Repeated statements were made about “trans activists” or “the trans community” making decisions that are “political”.
Viewers were told that “experts” are “terrified to [speak out] in public”. Again, though, this was simply stated without any attempt to discuss or explore what was meant by it. What does the term “political” mean in this context? Who are “activists” and what does that mean? Trans-people, their parents, friends and allies – to say nothing of the overwhelming majority of the medical establishment – were made to seem like a terrifying force riding rough-shod over the truth.
The decision to educate oneself, and advocate for the needs of trans-people – taken for example by a concerned parent – was presented as an irrational and hysterical desire to ignore good science and even common sense. Of course the idea that anyone agreeing with the “trans-activists” might also be a reputable “expert” was never even suggested.
The programme repeatedly slandered trans-people and their parents by setting up beliefs which we are supposed to hold and then knocking them down:
“It’s an intellectual and clinical mistake to think that there’s one cause that explains all gender dysphoria.”
“Just be neutral” when choosing toys.
“Trans activists don’t like the high rate of desistance talked about.”
“Well at least they’re not gay.”
There are “’pink brains and blue brains.’”
“I think that the transgender movement is reinforcing gender stereotypes.”
The programme repeated the idea that “the transgender movement” is based on rigid and simplistic ideas about gender. Again and again we were told earnestly that “there are a lot of ways to be a girl”; “some girls like Barbie and some do not”; children can play with any toys they like… If it were really the case that children are labelled as transgender because of behaviours which don’t comply with rigid gender stereotypes, yes, that would indeed be shocking. But this is not happening, and for the programme to imply that it is was not only insulting but dangerous.
It is disgraceful that the young woman who regretted her surgery was subject to abuse online, and blaming parents for their child’s suicide is heartless. It was also unacceptable to suggest that supporting a gender affirmative approach means that one supports such cruelty.
- So underhand, so dishonest
To illustrate an argument that being transgender is a mental illness with images of a priest in church is to suggest that it is a statement of faith: why not quote the peer reviewed study showing that trans-children whose families support them enjoy good mental health?
To talk about surgery in the same breath as young children when you know that nobody advocates this is deliberately misleading: why confuse the issues in this way?
To choose such unusual examples – a child who was separated from his mother; a child who witnessed the murder of their mother; a girl whose upbringing was so authoritarian and rigidly gender-stereotyped that she had “never really come across” the idea that girls can play sports; a woman who regretted her surgery – and build a case on them, rather than acknowledge how unusual they are, is to court controversy : why would you choose to do that?
In summary, I think that the BBC has many questions to answer about this documentary. I believe it was made only to shock, not to inform, and without any care for the people it would harm. The BBC must address these issues and make a serious attempt to undo the harm this documentary has caused.
Losing it: in Translation 