Press Council adjudication: The Press Council has decided that an opinion article partially breached its Standards of Practice

The Press Council has decided that an opinion article partially breached its Standards of Practice.

Press Council Adjudication logo

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Australian on June 13, 2023, headed “’Gender affirming’ care is destroying vulnerable kids” in print and “Why ‘gender affirming’ care is destroying our most vulnerable kids” online.

The article is an opinion piece on what the columnist considers to be the controversies of gender affirming healthcare involving children and adolescents, describing it as a “public health crisis caused not by a virus, not by a disease, but by social contagion”. The columnist said the notion that there are not just “two sexes, or that it is actually possible to change sex or be ‘non-binary’ …” has been embraced with enthusiasm by politicians, noting for example, the passing of “laws that allow people to falsify their birth certificates on the basis that they now feel as if they are a different sex to the one in which they were born”. The columnist said “Other laws have been passed criminalising the work of therapists who try to help children, adolescents and adults become more comfortable with the only body they have” and that when the Family Court (Re: Kelvin) held that the prescription of cross-sex hormones to adolescents no longer required court approval if parents and doctors were in agreement, it “To a great extent … relied on the affidavit of one medical practitioner from the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne” when it reached this decision. The columnist also said that a “substantial portion” of children who identify as a gender other than their biological sex “are on the autism spectrum”; that “Without puberty blockers, the unequivocal research evidence is that most children resolve their gender identity issues before or while going through puberty” and that “After systematic reviews of the medical evidence, the treatment has been all but banned in Finland, Norway and Sweden outside of strictly controlled research programs.”

In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article breached the applicable Standards of Practice requiring publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3).

The Council noted that the complaint had expressed concern that the statements regarding the falsification of birth certificates, that laws have been passed criminalising the work of therapists who try to help children, adolescents and adults become more comfortable with their body and that the Family Court relied on the affidavit of one medical practitioner from the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne are without factual

basis. Similarly, the complaint noted that statements concerning autism and its links to gender dysphoria, that those who do not use puberty blockers, resolve their gender issues before or while going through puberty, and that gender affirming healthcare has been all but banned in Finland, Norway and Sweden, are without factual basis.

In response, the publication noted that some Australian states allow changes to birth certificates based upon self-identification and because no legal checks are required if a person chooses to change their gender, it raises the possibility that a birth certificate could be altered under false assumptions. The publication also said that the effect of the various State legislation that makes it illegal to engage in ‘conversion therapy’, is to potentially criminalise the work of therapists who try to help children, adolescents and adults become more comfortable with their bodies. The publication hypothesised that someone could complain to authorities that they regard the therapists’ actions or methods as ‘conversion therapy’ unless the therapist chooses to ‘affirm’ that person’s chosen gender identity. In relation to the Family Courts decision, the publication noted that the columnist is a Law Professor who has provided detailed analysis in a peer reviewed article on the Court’s decision. In support of its comments concerning autism and a link to gender dysphoria, the publication referred to a number of research studies, including a position statement by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. The publication also referred to a number of studies as evidence to support its comments that there is a high rate of desistance in pre-pubescent children which has not involved the prescription of puberty blockers, or other interventions other than therapeutic support. In relation to the hospitals in Finland, Norway and Sweden, the publication noted that while the hospitals continue to offer a treatment program, the treatment is strictly controlled and takes place in the context of a research program. The publication said that it recognised that the issue of gender affirming healthcare is a complex and sensitive one and for this reason it has sought to publish a range of views on the matter.

Conclusion

The Council recognises that the article is clearly identified as an opinion piece and given the significant public interest of allowing freedom of expression and the undoubted public interest in the debate around gender affirming healthcare, the Council takes the view that such articles are entitled to express opinions with which some or even many may disagree. Nonetheless, even in an opinion piece, the obligation remains to take reasonable steps to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice.

In regard to the comment that the “…passing of laws that allow people to falsify their birth certificates”, the Council does not accept that there is anything in the material relied on by the publication to substantiate this statement. The Council notes the word “falsify” suggests a level of criminality or deceit that has not been made out by any of the material relied on by the publication. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect.

In relation to the comment concerning the criminalisation of therapists, the Council notes that by not specifically referring to the illegal practice of conversion therapy, the statement misleadingly and unfairly suggests that therapists could be prosecuted for providing therapeutic care. The Council does not consider there is anything in the material relied on by the publication to substantiate this statement. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect.

In regard to the statements that there is a link between autism and gender dysphoria; that the Family Court relied on to a great extent, the affidavit of one medical practitioner, and that without puberty blockers, the unequivocal research evidence is that most children resolve their gender identity issues before or while going through puberty, the Council notes that the publication referred to and provided material in support of each of these expressions of opinion and considers that there was a reasonable factual basis for the comments. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached in this respect.

As to the comments that hospitals in Finland, Norway and Sweden have all but banned gender affirming healthcare, the Council accepts that the publication did not state that this care was no longer provided by the hospitals and notes the publication’s comments that the treatment is strictly controlled in a research setting. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached in this respect.