Journalists should work to expose scandals, not willfully ignore them.
Journalists should work to expose scandals, not willfully ignore them.
Y ears from now, when historians are attempting to explain how the abusive gender experiments of the early 21st century happened, they will doubtless focus on the role of media. They may conclude that — as far as print media are concerned — it was the best of Times, it was the worst of Times. The best being the Times of London. And the worst being the New York Times.
In the past four years, the Times of London has doggedly reported the goings-on at Britain’s main transgender youth clinic. Janice Turner, a Times of London columnist, wrote that, for her, “it began with a graph.” In 2017, after realizing that female referrals to the transgender youth clinic had increased by 4,000 percent in a decade, her “journalistic curiosity was sparked.” And even “more so” when she could “find no mention of this in the mainstream press.” She began asking the obvious questions. Why the surge? What treatment does the clinic offer? What evidence is there in support of body-altering drugs and surgeries? What are the risks? What follow-ups have been done? Turner and her colleagues uncovered an ants’ nest. More questions followed: Why the censorship? Why the secrecy?
In answering these questions, the Times of London’s reporters shared testimony from clinician whistle-blowers. They revealed how the clinic was rushing vulnerable patients through experimental treatment, and they investigated the role of pressure groups in directing government policy. They also shed light on independent reports warning that female prisoners were being put at risk by policies favoring men identifying as women, and they interviewed de-transitioners (those who identified as trans but changed their mind) about how they were failed by clinicians.
One editorial, the official viewpoint of the newspaper, read: “The immutability of biology and genetics must be recognized, so that those born with male chromosomes cannot compete in women’s sports where male strength, size and body shape give an unfair advantage.”
Another, about the Tavistock gender clinic for youths, read: “Worries about the Tavistock’s obtuse ideology have long been highlighted by writers for The Times. At last the health service has listened.”
They were fearless, meticulous, and persistent in their coverage. And what they printed really did make all the difference. Four years ago, someone who read both the Times of London and the New York Times would be forgiven for thinking that the transgender ideology was an exclusively British problem, when really what was (and is) happening in the United States is far worse and on a far bigger scale. The trouble is that most journalists are either incurious or credulous on the subject.
Nevertheless, the sustained publicity of these issues in Europe is starting to force a reaction in the United States. A recent New York Times piece titled “They Paused Puberty but Is There a Cost?” states that “concerns are growing among some medical professionals about the consequences of the [puberty-blocking] drugs, a New York Times examination has found.” Moreover, the authors write: “There is emerging evidence of potential harm from using blockers, according to reviews of scientific papers and interviews with more than 50 doctors and academic experts around the world.” Some children on puberty blockers have experienced a “deficit in skeletal mass,” one doctor quoted explains. Others have developed osteoporosis.
And yet, even the possibility of ill effects was not mentioned in a 2018 New York Times piece by Perri Klass in which puberty blockers were referred to as a “‘pause button,’ which gives families time for counseling and a chance to be sure of the child’s wishes.” And in 2021 in a story titled “What Are Puberty Blockers?” the New York Times’ Lena Wilson claimed that the “significant benefits of puberty blocks” included “a reduction in suicidal tendencies . . . and a reduced need for expensive gender-affirming operations as adults” — without citing any supporting evidence. Yet Wilson did include a caveat:
While puberty blockers are commonly referred to as “fully reversible,” more research is needed to fully understand the impact they may have on certain patients’ fertility. There is also little known about the drugs’ lasting effects on brain development and bone mineral density.
Note that Wilson wrote that the “lasting effects” on brain development, bone mineral density, and fertility are not fully understood.
In January, the New York Times published a lengthy piece headlined “Doctors Debate Whether Trans Teens Need Therapy Before Hormones.” But as anyone following this issue is doubtless aware, doctors have been debating these issues for years. Why is the New York Times so late to the discussion?
Any competent journalist asking any of the basic questions that arise around the issue of transgenderism, especially as it applies to pediatric medicine, would soon realize that what is happening is an experiment — one in which participants are not only misled but also incapable of consent.