Sky News changes its coverage following lobbying by Mermaids

[jadefinch]

Mermaids contacted Sky and other media outlets over the story on Keira Bell taking the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust to court over the poor treatment she received for gender dysphoria, and demanded that they included coverage of teenagers who are happy with the gender reassignment work they've experienced.

news.sky.com/story/woman-says-rushed-gender-reassignment-treatment-left-her-suicidal-11946763

I'd argue that this is isn't relevant to the story but the media manipulation is worse than this: They got Sky to state:

'Most gender reassignment stories are positive'.

It's not detailed either what this actually means or what evidence there is to support this

How can they get away with it? Shame on you, Sky.

Looks like the BBC has done the same. The article was up hours ago but now says it's been updated in the last few minutes and includes at the end how Mermaids provides support for 'gender-varient (sic) young people and their families.'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51676020

Absolutely despicable. Why are media outlets capitulating to a niche pressure group? It is an indication of how damaging Keira Bell's story is to this lobby. Its demand that the medical profession confirms rather than challenges young girls presenting with gender dysphoria is seriously undermined by Keira's experience. The pressure exerted upon the media is sinister.

'Most gender reassignment stories are positive'.
I have to say that's clever wording. Of course most stories are going to be positive - if you can control which ones get out in the first place.

And what's the end limit for these stories? Very few girls had FtM surgery more than 10-15 years ago but from what I've seen online the majority who did now regret it - but they wouldn't have said that a year or two after the treatment

Of course Mermaids will do this. These groups have had privileged access to the media and the narrative from day 1.
But what this story will do is empower all those parents desperately trying to support their children through this and being repeatedly threatened by Mermaids etc with the blackmailing 'better a live daughter than a dead son' narrative. And the more people think about this, the more people - especially parents - hear about it, the more they see it as child abuse.

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

Lots of lies and misinformation.

Of course Mermaids will do this. These groups have had privileged access to the media and the narrative from day

Languishing

You are right. But I still struggle to understand why they have had such preferential treatment?

But what this story will do is empower all those parents desperately trying to support their children through this and being repeatedly threatened by Mermaids etc with the blackmailing 'better a live daughter than a dead son' narrative. And the more people think about this, the more people - especially parents - hear about it, the more they see it as child abuse

Absolutely agree. Keira Bell's intelligent analysis of her experience undermines the entire medical pathway narrative. She will be targeted by the zealots who are promoting this. Her bravery and integrity provides a sharp contrast with the media's craven pandering.

'Most gender reassignment stories are positive'.

I thought they didn't know how many desisters there were, because most of the children who received treatment were lost to follow up after leaving the children's clinic for adult services. Do they have any actual data to back up this statement?

Also how many young people like Keira do there have to be before the trans lobby starts to consider their welfare as well? How much collateral damage is acceptable to them?

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

Does the persistent poster have a reputable source for that statistic?

What does the reddit detransitioning forum run to? 10,000 people?

What did the Tavistock's own (limited) study show? That those who had been medically treated for gender dysphoria self harmed more afterwards, not less?

Furthermore, if mermaids are implying this, then the physical changes that puberty blockers result in, need to be urgently addressed.

Does a child's IQ plummet by eight points as is being suggested? If so, these children may well be suspended in a permanent child like state. Which might account for why they are 'happy'.

Mermaids are trying to stem the tide of challenge.

It will only result in further challenge to make them account for their position. This is not going to stop.

I think I may be overly optimistic, but I think Mermaids know they are slowly losing control of the narrative and are trying to prove they’ve still got influence.

Also how many young people like Keira do there have to be before the trans lobby starts to consider their welfare as well? How much collateral damage is acceptable to them?

That is an excellent question. One of the things that Keira's case highlights is that she is simply cut adrift after being put on the medical pathway. There is no therapy at any point, no attempt to explore any other treatment for her depression . This is radical, unprecedented medical intervention. The long term impacts are unknown. How can a 16 year old consent?

Most gender reassignment stories are positive.

FFS how are they getting away with this?!

Journalism 101: Fact check and cite sources.

Cowards. Bowing to a vocal minority. Proof that only if you shout loudest do you get heard.

The shame of this is that when the claim is challenged, the shouts of transphobia will be louder than anything else.

I am so disappointed in Sky News.

If I were GIDS I don’t think I would be too thrilled at Mermaids shoving themselves into this. GIDS want to downplay the numbers going on PBS whereas Mermaids thrive by making a really big deal about how many children this is “life saving” treatment for.

BovaryX
Trans groups laid the foundations for preferential treatment very early and targeted the media. The excellent journalist James Kirkup wrote about it when he covered the Denton's report - an international law firm who produced a report that summarised how this movement gained such influence in the face of democracy. It's well worth a read here:

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

But I still struggle to understand why they have had such preferential treatment?

This....in spades.

Let's be honest. Both Susie and Helen are middle aged women. Like I and many others on this board are middle aged women. Reasonably bright, averagely successful, and so-so attractive.

Most of us though are pretty invisible to society. Both in terms of strangers noticing us in the street, but also in terms of men/policymakers listening to our views. You dont hear the BBC putting themselves out to increase their middle aged woman audience. Damn it. You dont even hear M&S, Ocado or John Lewis listening to us, and they bloody ought to.

But Susie and Helen are feted. Why? What makes them special?

My guess is that they form the same purpose as Ruth Hunt and probably Jan Gooding. I suspect they are there and supported because they are articulating someone else's agenda. It sounds a bit mean but honestly it does not make much sense otherwise. And I further suspect that ROGD children and teenagers are not the primary aim, simply useful collateral. The question is, who is pushing all this 'queer' stuff, and why?

Despicable. Why are they so protected?

Let them overplay their hand and you keep having the back of this brave young woman putting herself out there to expose their lies.

Have the conversation. Let her bravery inspire you to discuss this with people. Mermaids have all the corporate and government backing, but they maintain their position through fear and silencing.

If Kiera has the guts to stand up to these people after everything they put her through, you've definitely got what it takes to talk to your friends, colleagues and the people in the newsagents and the bus queue about what this 'movement' is doing to youngsters with near impunity.

This is a #BeMoreMagdalen moment, women. Step up, speak up. Be brave.

I suppose if the judicial review will be hearing evidence from both sides of the divide , it makes sense for the media to report with balance too. It makes a refreshing change from sensationalist headlines followed by the detail that doesn't always match.

Seems fair and balanced so viewers can make up their own minds.

Mermaids have all the corporate and government backing, but they maintain their position through fear and silencing.

^this.

Let's have it all out. On the table. Every last bit of it. All of it scrutinised from A to Z.

If mermaids are asserting something, let's have it. Let's see the studies, let's talk to the people, let's talk to the people who disagree and ask why.

The more mermaids try to influence, the more they expose themselves to challenge.

And that's all anyone has ever asked for.

I suspect that Helen Belcher and Jane Fae of Trans Media Watch are behind it rather than Susie or Helen.

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

Does the persistent poster have a reputable source for that statistic?

That is the low end of the estimate of how many transsexuals experienced transition regret post surgery.

The caveat which must be added to any mention of this number is this:

This estimate only applies to post-op transsexuals who first underwent years of intense counselling that aimed to explore the underlying reasons for their gender dysphoria (GD) and to to treat any co-morbid mental health issues with the aim of reconciling these transsexuals with their own bodies. This was done explicitly to avoid putting them on a path of medically and/or surgically altering their bodies.

However, as we know, transition regret even amongst transsexuals who underwent thorough psychiatric evaluation and subsequent counselling seeking to resolve their dysphoria is underestimated because most of these patients are lost to follow-up and their number is therefore not accurately reflected because we can only count those available to be counted.

We cannot simply assume that all or even the majority of those lost to follow-up are experiencing transition regret either, as many patients may simply find that they are now happy enough post-surgery to maintain their hormone levels under the supervision of their regular doctors.

So that 1% is who told their GD specialists, and that's the number we're working with for this specific demographic.

However, Keira Bell and her peers, did not benefit from either thorough psychiatric assessment or exploration of the possible causes for their GD or therapy seeking to achieve a mind-body integration in these patients in order to avoid any medical transition.

They were, as Keira says, affirmed and never challenged in their thinking. They were given hormones and surgeries without any attempt made to dissuade them from this path.

In light of those fact, the known extremely low prevalence of transsexualism and the high rate of documented desistance among children, I would expect transition regret to be shockingly high in this group, quite possibly higher than 50%.

But at this point we don't know. All we do know is that transition regret among properly counselled transsexuals, who had to wait years for treatment is probably higher than the 1% usually stated. I would put it anywhere between 1 and 20% based on a meta study done in 2010 which found about 80% of patients were reporting subjective improvements after treatment. This ignores the fact that some of the patients who initially reported improvements may have got worse at a later date, which we know has happened. But the reverse also happened - much later improvement among the 20% not reporting any at follow-up.

It stands to reason then if up to 20% of a very carefully vetted group of patients do not report improvements and may come to regret transitioning, that a much higher percentage of a barely vetted group of patients may do so.

'Most gender reassignment stories are positive'.

Says mermaids.

Whilst simultaneously, on their website, under the Section for Professionals, marked 'FACTS - about transgender kids'

There have been NO (as in zero, zilch, nada, none) reliable long-term studies that follow transgender kids over time in order to determine how many of them “change their minds.”

So if they don't know how many change their minds, they don't know how many are happy, do they?

"It's all good. We have no idea how good it is."