Recognizing Bias and Deceptive Journalism

The Telegraph published this piece of drivel decrying the number of "biological males" who undergo gender reassignment surgery (GRS) in the UK.  It's trash journalism at its worst, but it is a good example of what to look for in detecting bias because it's loaded with all kinds of "weighted wording", dubious narratives, and sources that are not in the least bit authoritative on the subject. 

Structure and Wording

The structure of the article is itself an interesting example to consider.  It starts off with a review of some statistical information drawn from the UK's NHS.  From there it dives into arguments about de-transition, the claimed lack of evidence that GRS helps with Gender Dysphoria, and winds up with talking to the founder of a known anti-transgender organization.  

Note that in the entire article, there is absolutely no effort whatsoever to describe the scope of what transition means and the role of GRS in that much bigger picture. 

Just for fun, the article is full of scare wording designed to portray GRS in the worst possible light:  "penis cut off" is one such phrase (which is a crude and inaccurate description of the most common surgical technique used).  Add to that a focus on the surgery being "irreversible" (most surgeries are like that), and "causes infertility" (well - duh - although I do need to point out that by the time most transgender women have surgery, they've been on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) long enough that they aren't producing sperm anymore, and won't if they stop HRT either).  

Bogus Arguments

The article then leaps into a series of utterly bogus arguments.  The first is, of course the "what about regret / detransition" trope.  Yes, some people attempt transition, and discover that it's not for them.  That's been true for a very long time.  However, the portrayal of things is troubling - as it implies that the person was "railroaded" into having surgery, and I know that isn't how things work.  The NHS is particularly notorious for delays and extended waiting periods that render any accusation of "I didn't have a chance to back out" utter nonsense. 

They then claim that "there was never an opportunity to deal with other mental health issues".  Okay - but that raises the very clinical question - did those issues come up in discussion during assessment?  Clinicians aren't telepaths - if there is no indication of other mental issues, why would they assume that those issues exist? 

Then they go on to talk to someone who asserts that "there's no evidence that those surgeries do anything to alleviate gender dysphoria".  Of course that claim is false on its face.  The regret rate for people who pursue transition and do undergo GRS is low - much lower than that for most other kinds of surgery. 

Lastly, they talk to a founder of TransgenderTrend, a known anti-transgender lobby organization who makes a number of misleading statements.  

Missing

What is missing from this article?  Credible, unbiased sources.  It's riddled with anecdotes cast in a particular light, and utterly devoid of any attempt whatsoever to engage with sources with actual expertise in the matter. 

Did they portray transition journeys accurately? No.  Did they portray GRS accurately? No.  Did they even go so far as to cite a standard of care document?  No.  

This is an article that should be dismissed for being utterly inaccurate.