The Tavistock: inside the gender clinic

I give the host credit for attempting to be impartial. I agree that this topic needs to be discussed openly and I hate the culture wars surrounding this. However, despite what other reviewers here have said, I felt her bias definitely weighed heavily throughout the series. For instance, she says that hormone blockers are not safe because they can cause the loss of bone density. While this is true, puberty blockers are widely considered to be safe despite that possible side effect, especially when considering the high cost of doing nothing for these kids. She also draws the conclusion that because most kids who take puberty blockers go on to surgically transition, that is proof that the puberty blockers are impacting them. She says it as if they were influenced to transition because of the puberty blockers, rather than considering that these kids knew themselves enough to understand that transition is what they wanted. There are several other instances in the podcast where you could tell that she definitely leans against the use of the type of treatment the center was offering. While I agree that more research and more data are needed, I also fully believe that when the parents and the doctors are telling people this is the best path for the child given what we do know, we need to concede to their judgement.

I thought this was a brave attempt to tackle a very controversial subject. Clearly lots of bad faith and blame to go around, and as usual the people being failed are the most vulnerable. Thanks for making it, I learned a lot

I really enjoy Tortoise’s reporting in general - especially the depths into which they usually dig. This podcast is a standout from that quality, and not in a good way. It’s evident the reporting is biased heavily, and in quite a sinister way couched in use of affirmative language and lip service to being respectful and understanding towards trans individuals, against the treatments practiced by the Tavistock clinic and the GIDS trust. It’s one thing to state conclusions reached by reporting; it’s another to uncritically platform people who don’t understand their trans children and state medical misinformation as fact. In addition, this reporting is staggering in how superficial it is. It honestly felt like there’s one level of questions the reporter is comfortable asking and answering and isn’t willing to look any further to the roots of the difficult topics discussed - or at least isn’t interested in presenting that next level of information. This is hugely disappointing; it’s a Facebook argument dressed up in the togs of reporting backed by a media group with a good reputation. Finally, and maybe most ostentatiously, the conclusions the lead reporter draws are not infrequently incorrect. There are times where she calls a statement or a situation “black or white” or “with us or against us” when what we’ve just heard is room for nuance. This is transparently transphobic dogwhistling. Whether it was the intention of the reporting team or not, they have made a transphobic piece of media that spreads disinformation. And presenting some of the parents’ statements without criticism is downright irresponsible. There are some disgusting, hurtful, and frankly ill-informed quotes included in this without any reflection. Overall this was quite disappointing from a group I respect in general.

Anti-trans? Ashamed? Despite what others are saying, the authors were damned just covering this subject. The sensitivity behind this issue stymies any reporting or discovery that may be oppositional. Phenomenal job and thank you for this series. As seen in the US recently, being too sensitive will backfire- hard. Medicating children before they are old enough to fully understand the consequences is an enormous problem.