Complaint
A listener complained that the programme’s treatment of the Cass Review of NHS gender identity services for children and young people was biased because it included contributions only from speakers who spoke in favour of the Review.Β The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ’s editorial standards of impartiality.
Outcome
The programme was not a general discussion of the Cass Review. In keeping with the focus of the series on statistical data and its presentation, it set out to examine criticisms of the Review’s methodology, particularly the claim (advanced by TransActual among others) that it had ignored 98% of the relevant studies on the safety and efficacy of puberty blockers and hormones. It therefore dealt with evidence rather than opinion, and included contributions from speakers selected for knowledge of the relevant facts rather than as representatives of particular viewpoints. The programme demonstrated that the claim in question was false, and the ECU noted that many critics of the Cass Review no longer refer to the 98% figure, and that an MP who had said in the House of Commons that around 100 studies had not been included in the Cass Report subsequently apologised for inadvertently misleading the House. It is not a requirement of impartiality to include views in support of claims which are demonstrably false.
Not upheld