To be really disappointed with the Women’s Hour reporting of the Keira Bell case

[Blackberrycream]

I listened this morning and have been mulling on it on and off today. Their focus was very much on challenges to the case and the negative effects on currently transitioning teens. There were statements about support from many charities in these challenges. There was no focus at all on the shocking way that Keira was let down by adults as a teenager struggling with her identity. I understand that they need to investigate different viewpoints but they seemed extremely uncomfortable acknowledging the facts of the case.

Woman’s Hour can go to hell. They are lost.

Yes, I thought that listening today. It feels like a bit of a loss as I have always enjoyed listening but today I did think, that’s it then. I actually felt a bit angry with the BBC too. I’ve really never felt that before but it felt like dangerously shoddy journalism.

I thought it was awful. So one sided - as if Keira's victory was harmful to children. Very disappointed

@whensmynexthol1day

I thought it was awful. So one sided - as if Keira's victory was harmful to children. Very disappointed

I haven't listened to it but if they're reporting it the way you describe, I'm amazed they haven't considered at all the impact of their reporting on Keira's mental health - putting that kind of responsibility (i.e. "this ruling will make life harder for other trans kids!") on her shoulders.

It's funny how the "be kind" crap only ever goes one way on this topic.

The whole case is around not letting children have medical treatment that they, their doctors, and parents agree is appropriate, because they might not fully understand / come to regret it in future.

This is the exact same mentality as is used by people who seek to restrict access to abortions for pregnant teenagers - because they might regret it later. Thankfully no one has managed to make it so that teenagers can only access abortions with a court order - yet.

I can think of no other medical treatment where court orders are required despite patient, parents and doctors being in agreement. Children, who would otherwise have lived with significant medical intervention, are routinely allowed to DIE because parents and doctors agree it's in their best interests - so goodness knows why (reversible) puberty blockers are in their own special category now.

What about ear piercings and tattoos, where the under 18s need parental consent? 16 is way too young to be making decisions which will have permanent, life-changing effects like infertility and impaired sexual function.

@AvocadosBeforeMortgages

The whole case is around not letting children have medical treatment that they, their doctors, and parents agree is appropriate, because they might not fully understand / come to regret it in future.

This is the exact same mentality as is used by people who seek to restrict access to abortions for pregnant teenagers - because they might regret it later. Thankfully no one has managed to make it so that teenagers can only access abortions with a court order - yet.

I can think of no other medical treatment where court orders are required despite patient, parents and doctors being in agreement. Children, who would otherwise have lived with significant medical intervention, are routinely allowed to DIE because parents and doctors agree it's in their best interests - so goodness knows why (reversible) puberty blockers are in their own special category now.

Once you start down this road with puberty blockers, it can lead further dangerous medical interventions that are irreversible, especially if that young person feels they 'can't back out now'. Have you ever spoken to someone who has transitioned or more to the point, de-transitioned? Those effect are forever, both physical and mental. Never mind the fact that there are a whole host of reasons children and teens are feeling the want to transition, and most of them have very little to do with actual gender dysphoria. Transitioning make take years but it still doesn't fix what the actual issues are, and those stay with you for a lifetime. Better to take it as slowly as possible to make sure, than put a choice on children that is difficult to stop once you start going down that road.

More to the point, if you haven't gone through puberty yet then you are certainly not mature enough to be making such huge, life changing decisions about your physical health. It's a dangerous thing to medicate children based on sociological idealism/beliefs rather than biological sciences healing an actual physical illness, and perhaps the medical community are realising that they are opening themselves up to some huge ethical and legal implications down the road if they continue this way.

The BBC is lost. I can't believe the amount of money they spend on news and current affairs bit come out with the same things on repeat, the same old talking heads, the usual uninformed, one sided barely researched "packages"

@AvocadosBeforeMortgages

The whole case is around not letting children have medical treatment that they, their doctors, and parents agree is appropriate, because they might not fully understand / come to regret it in future.

This is the exact same mentality as is used by people who seek to restrict access to abortions for pregnant teenagers - because they might regret it later. Thankfully no one has managed to make it so that teenagers can only access abortions with a court order - yet.

I can think of no other medical treatment where court orders are required despite patient, parents and doctors being in agreement. Children, who would otherwise have lived with significant medical intervention, are routinely allowed to DIE because parents and doctors agree it's in their best interests - so goodness knows why (reversible) puberty blockers are in their own special category now.

All of your points were considered by three judges of the high court. They weighed up pages of evidence presented to them. They decided you’re wrong.

Puberty blockers are not irreversible, in the sense the vast majority of children who commence them go on to cross sex hormones. They don’t ever stop them.

The affirmative medical pathway - puberty blockers followed by cross sex hormones - incontrovertibly leads to infertility, sexual dysfunction and a myriad of other health problems that are known, plus effects that are yet to be known. The judges described this pathway as “experimental”.

The judges ruled that it is highly unlikely that a child under the age of 16 can possibly comprehend the implications of never being able to have sex.

It doesn’t matter that patients, parents and doctors might be in agreement. Because the doctors aren’t operating under system of evidence, instead a system of consensus, and the parents and patient can’t fully consent because the doctors can’t tell them the full long term implications. This is in contrast to pregnancy and abortion where everyone knows what it entails.

Please don’t repeat the myth that PBs are reversible. The drugs are when stopped, but they are never stopped. The pathway, started as young as 10 or 11, is a runaway train. Physical harm is inevitable and mental health improvements are not borne out by evidence.

This ruling will protect kids in the future from a pathway set by ideologues, but unfortunately does nothing to undo the harm already done.

Avocados try reading the actual judgement?

And yes, WH is crap now. And complaints via the online form are just waved away. It's seemingly impossible to get escalated to Ofcom unless you are/have a lawyer or part of a trendy wokesteresque lobby group.

I was wondering if direct emails to the recently appointed Director-General Tim Davie might be more effective.

I've found the email address [email protected] online.

Have you ever spoken to someone who has transitioned or more to the point, de-transitioned?

As a matter of fact, I've sat through the gender indentity clinic appointments, supporting someone else (a former friend - though the former bit is for totally separate reasons). I've been there when cross sex hormones were administered and top surgery were performed. I've also seen the hugely positive effects that receiving treatment had on that person - and met plenty of other trans people through them (though some of the teenage moodswings associated with a second puberty were less than ideal - but short term).

Puberty blockers ARE reversible because, if the person stops taking them, then natural puberty continues as normal. Puberty blockers buy time for the young person to consider what course of action they want to take. Do you know what ISN'T reversible? Letting natural puberty progress - particularly things like the voice breaking for those born male.

The high proportion of kids that progress from puberty blockers to cross sex hormones is a reflection that puberty blockers aren't handed out willy nilly, but only to those who are most likely to go on to transition fully. The proportion of people who detransition is very low - the stats are few and far between, but seem to suggest 1-5%, with some of those detransitioning due to a lack of support / open hostility. The vast majority of people who transition are happy with their decision and stay in their acquired gender.

Keira Bell's case is based around, in a nutshell, "I'm one of a small minority who regretted my choice and now I want to stop other people making their own choices, even if it would be right for them".

This is no more logical than a woman advocating for a ban on abortions because she regretted hers, or suffered an exceedingly rare side effect.

Puberty blockers ARE reversible because, if the person stops taking them, then natural puberty continues as normal. Puberty blockers buy time for the young person to consider what course of action they want to take. Do you know what ISN'T reversible? Letting natural puberty progress - particularly things like the voice breaking for those born male.

Sigh. They are technically reversible. If stopped. BUT THEY ARE NEVER STOPPED. The judges heard evidence and confirmed in their ruling that the vast majority do no stop them. They are not a pause. They don’t “buy time”, the commit a child to continuing down the pathway. You cannot keep repeating the “reversible” lie because it just isn’t true.

“The high proportion of kids that progress from puberty blockers to cross sex hormones is a reflection that puberty blockers aren't handed out willy nilly, but only to those who are most likely to go on to transition fully.”

If this is true, why do they need “breathing space” to figure things out? The fact is this isn’t true at all. I know of children as young as 11 who are on puberty blockers and don’t what what they want. They cannot consent to the pathway they’re on.

The proportion of people who detransition is very low - the stats are few and far between, but seem to suggest 1-5%

The 1% lie comes from a often quoted study from the Netherlands that looked at adults who regretted gonadectomy only. You are correct in saying that stats are few and far between. No one has any idea how many of the girls placed on PBs and testosterone will regret it in the future. As the judges said “this is a live experiment”.

Keira Bell's case is based around, in a nutshell, "I'm one of a small minority who regretted my choice and now I want to stop other people making their own choices, even if it would be right for them".

Wrong. Bell’s case was around the ability to consent to such decisions. Children cannot consent to giving up their future fertility and sex life. Three High Court judges agreed.

This is no more logical than a woman advocating for a ban on abortions because she regretted hers, or suffered an exceedingly rare side effect.

I’m always taken by the fact that with the abortion analogy, it’s always the abortion that is the equivalent. Why? Why is it not the pregnancy? Why is it not analogous to say 11 year old girls cannot consent to pregnancy? You could quite easily say that Keira Bell is advocating for a ban on teenage pregnancy because she regretted hers.

And it’s not remotely comparable anyway.

I’m always staggered to find there are people who exist who are happy with the prospect of children being given drugs by doctors that will render them infertile and sexually dysfunctional and cheer such decisions because those kids claim to be happy for a while, despite plenty of evidence to show it won’t bring them happiness in the long term.

The only thing that brings me relief in the face of such people like yourself is that three High Court judges weighed up all the evidence that exists and found in favour of Keira. Children will now be protected from the incontrovertible harm caused by doctors for the sake of an ideology.

Hear hear

Wouldn’t have happened if Jenny was still there!

Puberty blockers are predicated on the idea that there is another puberty you could go through. There isn’t. There is only one puberty for your body and it’s natural and inevitable. As inevitable any part of growth, maturity and death. That’s why the ‘reversible’ thing is such crap. It’s an inevitable stage and we should stop pretending it’s optional or capable of being tailored.

NotBadConsidering thank you for that fantastic summary

The judgement was all about not being able to consent to what was essentially experimental treatment. The Tavistock was unable to prove that the treatments were improving their patients lives and outcomes. It is more than surprising that they were unable to do this.

reddit is full of 'detrans' type threads, and the vast majority of these detransitioners are FTM. Keira Bell is hardly an 'outlier'.

Jamieleecurtains
Well done on find the email. I’m writing today.
Hearing Keira’s experience was shocking and not comparable to abortion as a pp tried to argue. She has lost her fertility.
My own son was asking some questions about his sexuality a while ago. We had a conversation about changes, different feelings and feelings changing over time sometimes.He seemed to feel he had to decide if he was straight, gay, bi, trans...He knows he is loved, accepted and supported. The conversation was upbeat and he was reassured that really it’s not a final decision he has to make at 12 ! Those years can be so tumultuous and our job is to guide them supportively to adulthood, when they are able to make informed choices. The labels put on sexuality( which can often be complex) are not helpful and seem to be adding pressure. Keira Bell was questioned about the way forward on Newsnight and she stressed that support is key.
On a separate note, what a level headed and brave young women she is.
Women’s Hour really doesn’t deserve that title anymore when they choose to look the other way when facts don’t fit their narrative.

I forgot to add, great post Notbadconsidering

Although I still listen to parts of radio 4 in the last year I have noticed a sea change to a one political view point on so many things even though it is against their rules. Woman's hour is one of the worst. It is also fairly London centric at times on Woman's hour and does not seem to acknowledge the lives of women outside cities for example whereas radio 4 had a lovely programme this week about the Redesdale valley in my native Northumberland - radio 4 at its best.

Xenia, I agree. It has been very noticeable in the last while. I was still a little gobsmacked listening to this segment though as it was clearly so journalistically poor and we should expect so much better from the BBC.
I still listen to Radio 4 too ( although I am switching off Women’s Hour unless they rediscover a bit of intellectual rigour) and there are pockets of really interesting programming. I love the show that looks at the stories behind statistics. I missed the show you talk about but it is always interesting to hear stories from different areas and different viewpoints.

The one about Northumberland I think was their regular programme of going out into the country and doing a walk whilst talking and interviewing people- Open country? I lke the economics one too you mention - more or less. I also like money box. I often like items on Women's hour but the last one I switched on it was like a comedy take off of a right on PC woke thing Harry Enfield might have written - you almost could not make it up.

I just hope it doesn’t start creeping into other quality programming. I think my debating club could pull it apart in its blinkered focus so I’m wondering how supposedly trained and professional journalists could put this out there. We will just have to enjoy the gems elsewhere . I think I have missed Open Country so will take a look.

I'm so relieved after the Bell case. I now believe a former friend with mental health issues is manipulating her 10 year old as she has 3 sons but wants a daughter. She is supported by Mermaids and is very convincing. Hopefully this may stop her in her tracks.