Complaint
Prompted by a leaked letter from the medical director of an NHS Trust which claimed milk produced by trans women with the help of drugs was nutritionally comparable to that produced by a mother following the birth of a baby, the programme included an interview with Kate Luxion, described as 鈥渁 research fellow in creative global health at the University College, London and a lactation consultant trainee鈥.聽 A viewer complained that (1) 鈥渢he science cited in the letter was accepted without question鈥 and 鈥渢he science was undoubtedly misrepresented鈥; (2) that the item鈥檚 reference to advice from the World Health Organisation was inaccurate and misleading; (3) that it was also misleading to show 鈥減ictures of women (females) feeding babies鈥 at the point where Ms Luxion was talking about a study of lactation induction in a trans woman; and (4) that Ms Luxion was presented as 鈥渁 neutral 鈥榚xpert鈥欌 whereas she had 鈥渁 vested interested in this debate鈥,聽 and 鈥渁s an authority on the issue without inviting on a medical expert to counter her argument鈥. 聽A second viewer complained in similar terms. 聽The ECU considered the complaints in the light of the 麻豆约拍鈥檚 editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality.
Outcome
On the first point, the ECU found limited evidence to support the claim, attributed to Dr James, that 鈥渁 transgender woman鈥檚 milk is just as good for babies as breast milk鈥; of the five studies cited by Dr James in her letter as 鈥渋nformative resources鈥 on 鈥渢he composition of human milk after induced lactation (nonpuerperal lactation) versus lactation after birth鈥 only one referred specifically to trans women, and was based on a single case (most referred to those whose sex was recorded as female at birth).聽 The weight of relevant evidence was not, therefore, made sufficiently clear and in the ECU鈥檚 judgement viewers would have been left with a materially misleading impression.聽
On the second point, the terms in which the introduction to the item referred to Dr James鈥檚 letter (鈥The Trust referred to studies and the World Health Organisation guidance, including one case which found what it called no observable effects in babies fed by induced lactation鈥)聽 would have led viewers to infer that the WHO guidance supported Dr James鈥檚 claim about 鈥渁 transgender woman鈥檚 milk鈥.聽 In fact, the WHO does not refer to trans women, and so accepted that the audience would have been left with a misleading impression of the evidence to support Dr James鈥檚 claim.
On the third point, generic pictures of babies feeding were shown as Ms Luxion referred to 鈥渢he research which has been done specifically about trans women鈥.聽 The first complainant considered this potentially confusing to viewers because 鈥渁 recent study showed that a third of people believe a 鈥榯rans woman鈥 is someone whose birth sex is female鈥.聽 The ECU considered that, although the term may not be universally understood, the concept of gender identity and the terms trans woman and trans man are widely used in public discourse and by relevant authorities such as the when referring to people with gender dysphoria.聽 The extent to which members of the audience would have been misled by the use of the term alongside images of babies being fed was, therefore, limited.
On the fourth point, Ms Luxion stated there was persuasive evidence to support the nutritional value of trans women鈥檚 milk and dismissed any health concerns about the potential presence of male hormones in milk produced by trans women.聽 In light of the limited evidence to support the view she expressed and her lack of any specialist knowledge about the nutritional value of human milk, it should have been made clear to audiences that more research is needed before such conclusions can be drawn with confidence.聽 The presenter did offer some challenge to the views expressed by Ms Luxion but the programme failed to give due weight to an appropriate range of views and perspectives on a controversial issue.
The ECU noted that the management of 麻豆约拍 News had already acknowledged to the complainant that some of the scripting of the item, such as the reference to the WHO, could have been clearer, and that it would have been better to interview another contributor alongside Ms Luxion to examine the issues raised by Dr James鈥檚 letter, and had made a posting to that effect on the significant complaints page of bbc.co.uk.聽聽 These actions allowed the ECU to conclude that the issues of complaint in relation to the second and fourth points to have been resolved.聽 The ECU upheld the first point of complaint in relation to accuracy, but found no breach of editorial standards in relation to the third point.
Partly upheld/resolved