Tortoise media podcast: The Tavistock

[oneaday]

Inside the gender clinic

In a few months, the Tavistock – the only NHS clinic in England and Wales which treats children suffering from gender dysphoria – will close. This is the story of what happened.

The first three episodes are now available for Tortoise members to listen to without adverts, with a new episode every Monday. Non members can listen to a new episode every week, wherever they get their podcasts. www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/thetavistock/

I have just listened to the first three episodes and think it is very interesting. Interviews with Polly Carmichael of the Tavistock for example

This podcast also looks into the situation in Blackpool with has one of the highest referral rates to the Tavistock and highlights the role of the trans advocacy groups in that area.

Thanks for posting. It sounds interesting. If I remember right the bloke in charge of tortoise dislikes women he calls terfs and went on a blocking spree, so it's good to gear that there's editorial independence. (I hope I've got that right and am not thinking of a different online news thing). Is it quite a neutral investigation?

It's amazing that this story really has broken.

It's interesting to listen to. The journalist, Polly Curtis*, makes a real effort but overall you get the sense of her saying "the true situation can't be according to that bunch of activists, and can't be according to the opposing bunch of activists, so I'm going to put it mid-way between the two".

The second episode with Polly Carmichael is revealing. Unfortunately this is where the journalist gets onto the tragic Reimer case and with Carmichael as her guide ends up with a partial and misleading account of what happened. It's at this point that the journalist's attempts to keep sex as a thing distinct from the gender concept, which was already by that point shaky, collapsed in on itself.

For some reason when Carmichael went to GIDS she took along a Barbie for the toy box for children to play with. I'm willing to bet money that what she meant was for boys who are identifying as girls to play with. It was a mermaids Barbie incidentally, but that was apparently a coincidence. Perhaps it was.

I'm going to listen to the rest of episode 2 and episode 3. Although this is flawed, it is a genuine attempt at investigative journalism by a mainstream media outlet.

* demos.co.uk/people/polly-curtis/

Just listening to episode 3, Although it is very neutral, she gives the other side plenty of rope and they prove some of our points. I like it.

Starting e2 now and this is exactly what I was thinking, naut:

It's interesting to listen to. The journalist, Polly Curtis*, makes a real effort but overall you get the sense of her saying "the true situation can't be according to that bunch of activists, and can't be according to the opposing bunch of activists, so I'm going to put it mid-way between the two".

Tortoise media also host the excellent podcast by Caroline Criado-Perez, Visible Women. www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/visible-women/

Theu have also written about Kathleen Stock and apparently she has contributed to their work too www.tortoisemedia.com/2021/10/11/the-kathleen-stock-case-is-about-much-more-than-trans-rights/

So definitely some editorial independence which is encouraging. I'll add this one to my listen to list.

Not sure about this. The two editors are James Harding and Matthew d'Ancona. I don't know what Harding's views are but d'Ancona is gender-critical.

Royalcorgi maybe I am wrong and have got my online media confused.

Although I'm being critical, this is definitely worth listening to, and I think many of my criticisms are as a result of the journalist going well out of her way to minimise claims of partiality against her, which I suspect she knows would comes as abuse and aggression.

3 episodes of 30-40 minutes is something I was able to slot into a couple of days quite nicely.

The journalist is upfront that it's not really possible for her to ask probing questions of the young people identifying as trans. She doesn't say it but it's clear it's because she, probably correctly, perceives them as being incredibly fragile. So you end up with her saying this kind of thing about a young transwoman:
"Steph is somewhere between male and female. If you imagine a sliding scale with male at zero and female at 100 Step says that they are a 75 or maybe an 80 so a bit on the feminine side". [My comment: Steph seems to be one of the massive wave of ROGD males who found their trans identity online. This happened simultaneously for Steph and two transboys on a Minecraft server.]

Other stuff isn't challenged. For example Polly Carmichael's second-in-command at the Tavistock, Bernadette Wren, said children on the waiting list for the Tavistock (I assume this was GIDS) killed themselves. A claim like this really have led to a request for further details.

There was one statistic that particularly caught my ear, that 1050 children (under 16s) were referred for puberty blockers. They were out of 19125 that "went to the Tavi", just over 1 in 20. It wasn't clear whether she meant "went to GIDS at the Tavi", which I assume she did.

Polly Carmichael was treated gently but even so, or maybe because of it, gave a rather damning account of herself. She needs to be in a court facing charges. But I think I detected a difference in tone between her and Bernadette Wren. In terms of presentation, I think that Carmichael believes she can bluff it out while Wren seems to be more worried about being held accountable.

But I do feel that in the interests of impartiality, the journalist seemed to be continually backing away from the red flashing lights indicating that many things were horribly wrong. But at least you could tell that she is deeply troubled but much of what she's found and although perhaps she'd like to be onboard with the ideology, her doubts are causing her a real problem with that.

There is one glaring omission. There's been no talk about detransitioners. (Possibly mentioned in passing but I heard nothing of substance.) The journalist's style is to continually ask what she considers to be the key questions. I'm waiting to hear her ask this: What happens if a child wrecks their body and then spends a lifetime in anguish over what they've done to themselves? And how should people be held accountable? I'm hoping this will be in the next episode.

But I do feel that in the interests of impartiality, the journalist seemed to be continually backing away from the red flashing lights indicating that many things were horribly wrong.

I've just been listening to the first two episodes, and I agree that the section with Steph telling how they and two friends both coincidentally discovered they were trans at the same time while playing Minecraft stood out for me too. However, in my view, the empathy the journo is showing for young trans people doesn't in any way detract from my overriding sense that things have gone wrong. I think she's teasing out the issues quite well.

I listened to the first one yesterday and get the sense this series is aimed at the Be Kind, liberal middle classes who somewhat believe in GI so has to tread the line of sex is a spectrum, pronouns etc (the big explanation of why different pronouns used for the transman daughter when speaking with the mother). No express mention of detrans but Steph is now a they/them which is interesting. I’m looking forward to the next one.

Episode 4 is now out:

www.tortoisemedia.com/audio/the-tavistock-inside-the-gender-clinic-episode-4-enemy-within/

I've not listened yet but definitely will be.

I posted this on a previous thread

Another voice of thanks for the recommendation. I’ve listened to the first three. Interesting and lots to think about.

I found the offensiveness of the question “what makes you trans?” (which I took to mean: how do you know you are trans) quite hard to understand. The parallel with “what makes you gay?” didn’t help me because I understand the idea of sexual attraction and if a person is sexually attracted to the same sex, they’re gay. That is what makes them gay. But there’s nothing like that explanation in the trans world.

Is it like someone who has never experienced sexual attraction trying to understand the idea of fancying someone? But even there, there are clear nuts and bolts, observable physical responses, that you could explain.

With gender identity, it’s either “I just am” or “I always liked (insert opposite sex stereotype)”, neither of which makes sense to me.

Which is fine. It’s not my life.

But when it comes to irreversible medication or surgery on minors, it’s safeguarding and it’s everyone’s concern.

All I heard from Stef was a story of a kid of 10/11 who wasn’t fitting in and spent a lot of time online and suddenly got a simple explanation. I was shocked when the journalist revealed quite a way into the story exactly how young Stef was when she came out.

Yes. I'm not sure they made the link with the number of children in care in Blackpool though.. or did I miss that? Or maybe that will get covered later?

Like others on this thread I feel that the journalist is walking a tightrope and pushing things as far as she feels she can to make sure the episodes get released and have an audience rather than her and her works being declared irredeemably transphobic.

This seems to be confirmed by the fourth episode which focuses on a GIDS whistleblower, therapist Kirsty Entwistle. Entwistle did the unthinkable, she questioned the nature of being trans. The episode also touches upon other whistleblowers. This is contrasted with Bernadette Wren who is troubled, but has to keep the faith, and Polly Carmichael who is still ouraged that anyone could have done something as uncollegiate as whistleblowing. (Later on PM makes an astonishing statement about what GIDS was supposed to do. At this point I thought "the journalist should have peaked by now".)

That was a particularly good episode.

It was a good episode. Particularly struck by how Polly C evaded the question- " but how do you know who is going to stay trans" . So good to hear her asked that directly. I agree, the journalist is walking a fine line pretty well.

As you might imagine, it's going down well on Twitter:

twitter.com/tortoise/status/1597571074643959808

and here's a more detailed take by a trans activist:

twitter.com/whoisernie/status/1597580818905698304

Episodes 5 and 6 are now up.

www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/thetavistock/

I'm going in...

Stand down everyone. Episodes 5 and 6 are illusory, it's just trailers behind the new links. Supposedly they're scheduled to be released this week.

I''ll be back.

Both episodes seem to be available to me?

Thanks for setting me right. They've done something odd with the links. If you open the link directly on the webpage you get the full episode but if you open it as a tab you get a 3 minutes trailer. For both episodes 5 and 6. Nevermind. I'll see what I can fit in tomorrow.

Anyone listened to them all yet?

I'm curious on other people's thoughts and feelings from it as I'm not sure about mine. The overriding response I had at the end was a kind of dissatisfaction.

Maybe that's just because the series expressed the ongoing uncertainty of the situation well, but I also kept thinking about so many aspects of this left unmentioned and unexplored.

I had a vague kind of anxiety all the way through listening that I can't explain. Maybe a sense of a reality that this is the way things are now, and in spite of everything this is a new normal. A kind of hopelessness.

I think it was actually very good to hear something open to all perspectives on this issue, but there were so many things left unquestioned and perspectives not voiced.
impossible to cover every angle maybe, but it made me wish someone could do an even deeper dive than what was done here.

Interesting about the 'sources high up in the NHS' I thought. Did anyone sense there were biases here?

Also, I thought the social transition element is quite key in this debate and I didn't feel this was as openly explored as other aspects.
The revelation that government (in the Truss period) altered the NHS interim spec to include this was interesting, but people have been questioning this for years (including in the Cass review) and it seemed to me that it was being suggested that this was purely a socially-conservative political agenda?

Really want to hear others responses please.

My take-away was that the scandal they unveiled at the Tavistock was that politics had intervened in the medical treatment of 'trans kids', interfering in the right of every young person to socially transition if they wanted.

I was also left wondering how on Earth someone medically transitions to non binary.

Listened to all of the free available episodes so far, I find the walking on eggshells by the journalist means that we never delve deep enough on any subject. Listened to other interviews with whistleblowers and you get to understand a lot more.

The part around Leeds and London pronunciation of GIDS I found needless, and does seem to be leaning towards the London-based upper middle class demographic. Calling it "The Tavi" is annoying as a nickname tries to make it seem like a friendly institution.

Most interesting part was around how the head Tavistock had a team review the journalist's social media before accepting an interview. This is an NHS body and seems to believe it should be above public scrutiny.

Interesting that Steph defended the interview on Twitter and got attacked by TRAs.