Sky News changes its coverage following lobbying by Mermaids

A lot of trans people refer to cross hormones as HRT. It's part of the 'born in the wrong body' narrative

And using language that minimises what is actually being done:

eg. HRT instead of cross sex/wrong sex hormones; top surgery instead of double mastectomy; T instead of testosterone etc.

A lot of trans people refer to cross hormones as HRT. It's part of the 'born in the wrong body' narrative

I feel so sad for her: how many 14, 16 or even 18 year olds would be happy further down the track if their burning desire were actually granted?

At 14 or 15 I had the horn for Michael Douglas (Romancing the Stone). The forty-something me - with the benefit of hindsight and the wonders of the internet - is very, very glad my teen wish was not granted.

I feel so sad for her: how many 14, 16 or even 18 year olds would be happy further down the track if their burning desire were actually granted?

I was interested to see that the cross-gender hormones are often referred to as HRT. You can't 'replace' hormones you've never had at significant levels: you can displace existing ones and introduce new ones, but that's a different thing.

Just to add that on R4 World at One(?) Keira Bell was interviewed, and both in the introduction and in the interview the presenter did not in anyway bring in Mermaids or any what about the number of suicides side track.

Have now heard her speak twice. Very impressed. She says she has had to accept she will now live an androgenous (spellling?) life. But maybe this is the most positive resolution for her given what has happened?

The Tavistock should be concerned.

But they should have taken some responsibility for their actions earlier and not left it to a brave woman like Keira Bell to do the right thing.

Keira's case concerns the Tavistock.

Some of those 35 clinicians who have left in recent years complained that Mermaids had too much influence, and that the Tavi were allowing groups with an ideological agenda to lobby and influence clinicians.

Mermaids seems to be proving this very point.

Under the Times article, there is a very persistent poster repeating that only 1% of transitioners are unhappy

Thats cos the mermaids women was all over the bbc yesterday and thats what she was saying

(Sorry if its been said already and i missed it)

Most gender reassignment stories are positive.

Isn't this what the judicial review is meant to investigate? If gender reassignment as pushed by Mermaids and carried out by Tavistock is the appropriate treatment, so successful that the risk of untested drugs and surgery can be acceptable?

Fair coverage of Keira's story on NZ news. No mention of Mermaids.

It's irrelevant to show people happy with the effects. What about all the people who are unhappy? They are the real victims in all of this. They feel their lives have been ruined.

I am willing to see journalism attempt balance, and it's not always easy.

However, I do not think this is quite how they would approach balance for another similar type of medical review story, if for no other reason than it's not clear how accurate it is.

It might be fair, in a longer treatment article, to talk to someone with a successful transition, or to talk about that in a complimentary article. But a big part of the problem being addressed with the need for the review is that lack of real data to answer these questions - so how can you state that we know?

Well even if such research had been done and even if these were statistics rather than stories and even if it was the "majority", that still wouldn't mean a whole lot... I mean, most people hear the word "majority" and interpret it as meaning a large majority, but it could mean 50.01%. It could mean that half of them go badly and are regretted. And that's if it's even true in the first place.

But journalism should offer both sides of a story for balance

The story is former patient in legal challenge against medical centre that treated her.

Such a story first reports on who is the patient and what does she allege has gone wrong. Balance is provided by giving the medical centre the chance to reply to the allegations.

That would have been unbiased, at least on the surface (you can easily manipulate the audience response by how much airtime you give to each side, how you describe both sides and who gets the last word).

Seeking to undermine this former patient's allegations by featuring - however briefly - the story of a much younger patient currently being treated, whose case is not connected to the former patient's one in any way and which may not even be connected to the clinic in question (we are not told) upends this balance.

One could restore the balance by for instance referencing a medical expert who prefers a different treatment approach explaining how this might have avoided the harm this former patient suffered. (This would have been pertinent information to the audience in any case, who are not told that there is a second treatment approach considered to be best practice internationally, backed up by empirical evidence not available for the treatment approach used for this former patient.)

It is not entirely unwarranted to provide such additional details as the audience might need to understand the case, but it should be finely balanced.

A claim of "However, most gender reassignment stories are positive." without providing statistical evidence is neither good journalism nor balance, but emotional manipulation of the audience instead.

No the derail was mine ReinstateLangCleg ! I just can't stay on topic.

Sorry to derail with my question FannyCann

I was just thinking that perhaps if Sky is making money off of running particular advertisements (such as a Starbucks campaign with Mermaids), they might be slightly less keen to properly examine the actions of this highly influential lobby group which advocates for children to undertake irrevocable pharmaceutical/surgical steps (resulting in lifelong medicalisation) in order to "affirm identities."

Part of the issue here is that Mermaids and others have been able to frame a narrative around the term 'transgender children'. Ditto for 'drag kids'.

It's hugely irresponsible when talking about or reporting on children although I think we've mostly all fallen into using it as common parlance. I know I'm guilty of that because trans kids rolls of the tongue easier than the (more factual) alternatives.

We should be talking about children who have a gender dysphoria condition or similar. Immediately labelling any child who feels discomfort or incongruence as trans sets up future expectations and points down one pathway only. A bit more difficult with older teens perhaps as they are more likely to self label but certainly with very young children and pre teens.

We see a similar thing happen with the term 'child pornography'. It's lazy shorthand that handily obfuscates what is really happening and implies consent in young children.

*walked. I walked past.

Is there any chance SkyNews doesn't want to upset Starbucks and their Mermaid cookies?

Derail alert. But I asked past our local Starbucks today and was pleased to see it has closed down.

It is actually pretty bloody heartless and cruel

I'm so used to the politicising of this issue, and the 'of course mermaids are going to diss someone who wants to challenge handing out puberty blockers to children' that I completely missed out on how cruel and hypocritical this really is.

For a charity who profess to support transitioning children, they sure can't wait to stick the boot in if these children have made a mistake.

Is there any chance SkyNews doesn't want to upset Starbucks and their Mermaid cookies?

It is actually pretty bloody heartless and cruel

And we're all knocked down with shock at that, aren't we?

This is not balance.

It is like "balancing" a story about a couple whose baby died in hospital with a story of a couple with a live baby.

It is actually pretty bloody heartless and cruel.

This kind of assertion is going to cut no ice in a judicial review

Or anywhere. The opposite actually. People easily see through the disingenuity.

...the wazoo

(Sorry pressed post too soon).