Abstract
As I write, at the end of July 2022, few in the UK’s trans community would disagree with the simple proposition that it’s been a difficult year for us. Difficult year, difficult week, as the go-to issue for stressed-out Tory leadership candidates seems to be not cost of living, not oncoming recession, nor even climate change, but the war on woke and pronoun discourse.
That would be bad enough were it just for the duration of the campaign. However, the UK media is invested in anti-trans rhetoric and reporting. A recent survey by Trans Media Watch found stories about trans folk currently running at 600-700 per week in the UK press. We are on our way to achieving editorial nirvana: to wit, one story per out trans woman – because it is with us they are obsessed – per year.
That’s…mind-boggling. Worse still is the spin. Take the week just gone, the last of July.
There have been three stories of note for the UK trans community. First and worstmost, the Rugby Football Union has banned all trans women from participating in women’s rugby. Now, I’m biased. I don’t play rugby; really cannot see the point of it. However, rhetoric aside, I don’t see the point of this ban, and suspect it won’t stick.
Why? One of the justifications given is safety. Women’s safety. So, they have banned every trans woman, no matter how small, while retaining non-trans 20-stone six-footers. Is that logical? Does it promote safety? Nah. Not at all. Which is why the policy feels doomed. In the long term. Nonetheless, the UK media liked that story and, given their inherent bias around trans people, I expected no less.
Second up? This would be the story that the Cass Review – an inquiry into trans healthcare – has re-issued and doubled down on a recommendation it made a few months back, that the NHS wind up the Tavistock Clinic, at present the only facility in the UK providing support and healthcare for trans youth.
Awful news for the trans community, you’d think, and the usual suspects were there to gloat. The Daily Telegraph unleashed at least four articles on the topic in two days. The Times went sensational, with a piece headlined “Tavistock gender clinic forced to shut over safety fears”. The all too predictable narrative: treatment of trans kids is speculative and wrong. And it is now being closed down for good.
The problem is that this narrative was almost entirely false. The trans community – and parents of trans kids – has long had issues with the Tavi, as it is more familiarly called. Many clinicians there were seen as problematic. Worse, filtering every young trans person through a single centralised facility based in London was a nonsense – and an expensive insult to those based in, say, Manchester or Newcastle.
The closure was broadly welcomed in the trans community, not least because the youth service is to continue, in the form of de-centralised local services. The exact solution that trans folk have been asking for since pretty much forever. About the only news outlet to report the story accurately was Pink News, under the heading “NHS Tavistock youth gender clinic to be replaced under sweeping trans healthcare reforms”.
However, for biscuit-taking inaccuracy, look at the third big trans-related story of the week. That would be the employment tribunal in which Allison Bailey claimed that Garden Court Chambers, where she worked as a criminal defence barrister, had unfairly held back her career. This she attributed to her“gender critical” views, viewed by many in the trans community as anti-trans. A prime mover in this holding back, she further claimed, was LGBT+ charity Stonewall.
Understandably, again, the trans community held its breath. Whatever your thoughts on Stonewall, it has been a staunch ally over the last few difficult years. So any verdict that damaged Stonewall financially or in terms of reputation would have been unwelcome. ‘Twas not to be. After raising some £550k for her costs by crowdfunding, Bailey came away with negligible damages from the chambers for hurt feelings. The judge said that “alleging that Stonewall directed the complaints process was a conspiracy theory”.
Bailey herself tweeted, saying: “I have lost my case against Stonewall.” Much rejoicing in the trans community. Which is why the mainstream media reported it as, er, a defeat for Stonewall! No, honestly. Fringe commentator Unherd reported “How Allison Bailey crushed Stonewall”. An interesting verdict, given that Stonewall was so comprehensively exonerated.
The Telegraph went with “Barrister wins discrimination case against Stonewall”. Well, that was their first attempt, though after the inevitable complaints, they amended it to “Allison Bailey was unlawfully victimised for opposing Stonewall’s ‘trans extremism’, tribunal rules”, although the URL for the piece still reflects the initial headline.
The Times walked the tightrope between fact and fiction more adroitly…though it still centred Bailey’s views and focused on her winning rather than, as a close reading of the trial judgment suggests, the chambers losing by not having proper processes in place.
The Daily Mail, though, went all the way “VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH…AND WOMEN”, with a subhead of “Barrister wins her historic battle after being victimised for standing up to ‘trans extremists’ trying to erase biological sex”.
Just, no. Who are these “extremists” – and who among them are trying to “erase biological sex”? I believe that is what is known as a straw man argument. And in the day after this case, there were plenty of those around. Several papers, including the Telegraph and Mail, used quotes from Bailey’s (losing) arguments to highlight the badness of trans people.
So, there you have it. One week. Three big stories. One negative for trans people. Two pretty positive. Yet all reported as bad news. And people wonder why the community is on the verge of a collective nervous breakdown!
