There was an ostensible “news” article on the ABC news site about Trump’s executive order (EO) titled “DEFENDING WOMEN FROM GENDER IDEOLOGY EXTREMISM AND RESTORING BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.” The capitalisation is not mine; it is in the executive order FFS! The Whitehouse is becoming an ALL_CAPS tweet factory.
I was interested to find out what the Trump administration had done. They had plenty of time to plan it, and I was hoping that it would focus on the over-reach of gender ideology which, I believe, is an under-reported issue which is driving votes towards MAGA and One Nation here in Australia.
ABC opinion pieces are always tagged as “Analysis”. This one was not, though it was tagged as LGBTIQ+. But that is a subject marker, so this tax-payer is entitled to assume that it will be news reporting, you know that stuffy old journalism stuff from before we were all advocates for something. I think that the ABC article fell well short of basic journalistic standards. This is nothing to do with my view of the EO itself – which I will outline later. The key problems were:
- The article says that the EO uses a definition of sex that is” unconventional”. The definition is a purely biological one that is universally accepted amongst scientists, albeit in a much wider context than human sex and culture. But keep in mind that this is a definition of sex, not gender.
- The article says that it is inappropriate to suggest that humans have those cells at conception. We really do have these cells at conception.
- The article says that the American Medical Association (AMA) asserts that sex is on a spectrum. It does not. It says gender is on a spectrum, though it is rather poorly worded, perhaps deliberately so.
- The article is supposed to be a news report about the executive order but does not include the opinion of any of the sponsors of the EO, even second hand.
I really wanted to know what Trump’s EO had done. After reading the ABC piece, I knew that I was just listening to pink haired activists. Frustrated, I linked to the actual EO and read it carefully and decided that I do not support this order, despite being sceptical about gender ideology in general. The ABC propaganda piece forced me to do my own research. “Doing your own research” is liable to get progressives mention tin foil hats and think they are being ever so clever. But if you cannot trust the media, there is no option than to find out for ourself.
Now to the details of the EO and the bias in the ABC article.
While the biological definition of sex based on gamete size is clean and conventional, this narrow scientific definition ignores the real existence of intersex people, however rare. All intersex people are indeed male or female according to the pure biological binary but their genetics and morphology are not binary. In the context of policy on sex, human culture and gender fluidity, a more appropriate definition of sex (which is still scientific) is the standard XX, XY categories which allows for unusual variations like XYY and XXY and other disorders of sex development (which is the new name for intersex but which I predict will soon be banned from polite conversation).
However rare the exceptions, sex is not binary! But it is not on a spectrum either. See? I am not a mindless ideologue. I just want journalists to do their job rather than see their role as advocates.
Second, the order 3(d) says that all official documents shall be based on the aforementioned birth sex. (Note: This has now been slightly changed on the website but the meaning is the same). So, people who have had hormone therapy and surgery 20 years ago and have documents consistent with their current identity will have their documents revised i.e. changed back to original. So someone who has been able to present as female for 20 years will have male on their passport. Imagine the scene at customs control. It seems to me that this is indeed cruel. Brianna Wu spoke movingly about this on a recent podcast with Josh Szeps who is a former ABC drive time host who was informally forced to leave the public narrow-caster. While I do not think anyone should be able to change their birth documents on a whim, it should also not be impossible to change your passport or driver’s license, and it certainly should not be changed back retrospectively.
Who cares about my opinions though?
The point is that I had to read the executive order myself to understand it and decide on my stance, because the ABC had published polemic rather than journalism.
I was bloody annoyed, so I made a formal complaint to the ABC through their website: Below is the complaint, dated Feb 1. In all the following, I remove the passive aggressive bullshit about “thanks you for your email” etc. “We remain committed to handling your complaint in a timely manner.” The world would be so much better off without this pretence of polite accountability.. It is probably more than half of the content.
Feb 1: Lloyd to ABC:
I refer to the article “Donald Trump’s executive order on gender is ‘cruel’, US queer community says.” This is not flagged as an opinion piece. It is supposed to be news.
It contains two major factual errors. First, it claims that Trump’s order uses an “unconventional definition of sex”. This is false. It is the most standard biological definition. Second, it claims that the American Medical Association says that sex is best understood as a spectrum. This is also false as one can find out by going to the AMA website. Only gender is considered to be on a spectrum. Their views on sex are more nuanced.
Feb 6, ABC to Lloyd:
We consider that biological definitions of sex generally refer to physical characteristics, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, genes and hormone levels. In this context, we do not consider the statement in the article to be inaccurate.
Similarly, we consider the statement that the American Medical Association says that ‘sex and gender are better understood as a spectrum’ is accurate. See: D-295.312 Medical Spectrum of Gender | AMA.
They dodged the point. Biological definitions of sex certainly CAN be based on these alternative criteria and as I pointed out above I think that chromosomes would be better in this context. My complaint was that the article said that the cell size definition was unconventional. They could have instead said that the definition was narrow and ignores intersex. And the response to the second issue ignored the distinction between se and gender. It is just wrong. Click the link yourself.
Later the same day, I responded:
For the record, I am not in favour of the US policy. That is not why I complained. I am against bias in a NEWS article. AFAIK, it is not flagged as opinion.
The AMA says that GENDER is on a spectrum, not sex. Check the link you provided. You would think in an article about sex and gender, where the authors would presumably claim that they are distinct, it would be worth being more careful not to conflate them. You would hope that the editorial process would have picked this up.
The article stated that the new policy is based on an “unconventional” definition of sex. What does “unconventional” mean? This descriptor is chosen to be vague and pejorative. It is certainly a standard scientific definition. If the journos has said “an unconventional but common scientific” definition, I would have no beef.
The authors did not seek out anyone who supports the legislation. There is supposed to be balance, right? This does not mean mindlessly giving equal time to both sides, but a new article on a controversial legislation should at least have some coverage of the claimed reasons.
Please reconsider your assessment with an open mind.
Receiving no replay, I checked through their protocol documents. The next day I wrote:
I think I have made it clear that I do not accept your assessment. This is not a matter of personal opinion. I believe you are simply in error but am willing to be proven wrong. If this is the end of the process, I would appreciate confirmation.
From your complaint procedures document:
3.8. The Ombudsman’s Office has a review function which provides complainants with an option to request a review.
What is the process to request such a review?
Forced to respond by this formal request, I got:
I can confirm that your matter will be assessed, and you will be notified in due course about whether it will be accepted for an Ombudsman’s review, in accordance with the ABC’s complaints handling process.
Eventually on Feb 20, I received the following from the Ombudsman:
As per our complaint handling process, our office has a review function to provide dissatisfied complainants with an option to request internal review and has the discretion to accept or not accept a complainant’s request for review.
In this instance we have decided to decline your request for a review. We are satisfied that your complaint has been adequately addressed, and we refer you back to the earlier response.
I responded with a quick query asking if this was the end of the matter. No response. So I sent a more structure email the following day:
Will you at least acknowledge receipt of this email?. Are you able to continue communication regarding the process of your review?
If I can ask questions about the process of your review, can you tell me whether my response to the first reviewer was provided to you.
Later the same day the response was:
We refer you to our previous correspondence. We have nothing further to add.
Undeterred, I responded:
Can you let me know if there is any avenue at all to further pursue this? This is a question about ABC ombudsman processes and I think you have to answer this. Let me know if you do not have to answer this.
I note that you did not answer my question about whether you were provided with my further text input as part of your review. In which case, you could not possibly have done a proper review.
Are you required to answer the question about whether you were provided with my previous communication? This is again a question about ABC ombudsman processes and I think you have to answer this.
It is not unreasonable for a taxpayer to have the process of the ABC ombudsman clarified.
No response. My final missive was:
I formally request the contact details of your supervisor, or some other pathway to address the review process itself. I believe that your protocols will require you to at least let me know if this is possible.
There was really no need for you to be so deliberately obstructive. I do not want the journalist fired. I just expect the ABC to actually engage with my complaint, which you have not.
I cannot find any option on the ABC website for pursuing the matter. Like the NT Police, they investigate their own failures. I sent all this stuff toie MediaWatch, who are not averse to criticising their ABC masters, but did not get any reply.
I wonder whether the ABC can be redeemed. They have become a sanctimonious cult that resent scrutiny. Do they have a purpose, apart from fire and flood reports?
It is not MyABC.