June 2022

The inner workings of media bias

One does not have to be a linguist to reveal bias in the reporting on “transgender” - not just in New Zealand. Often, it is less than subtle, or even overt ”trans” propaganda. Let’s take a closer look at an article by STUFF reporter Catherine Hubbard, published on 10 June 2022 on the STUFF website.

A bit of background info:
In August this year, CATA, the Child and Adolescent Therapists Association of New Zealand, will hold a conference titled “Children, Adolescents and Gender - Negative Impacts of Transgender Ideology”. When the organisers started advertising the event, opposition on social media was swift:

Not to be outdone, STUFF published Catherine Hubbard’s one-sided view, which in its wordiness appears balanced, but at closer inspection is an opinion piece. Her writing contains every logical fallacy in the book and doesn’t shy away from misrepresentation. Quotes from the article will be in black italics.

Right off the mark, the headlines whip readers into the author’s line of thinking by creating what they assume to report: outrage.

Transgender conference sparks fierce national backlash. A conference on the “negative” impacts of transgenderism has caused outrage across the rainbow community. By putting the word negative in quotation marks, the author directs readers toward rejecting the conference, which is the aim of her article.

Since this writer knows many groups and individuals* within the rainbow community who are not outraged, this claim seems to be pure hyperbole.

[CATA] will play host to speakers on topics like “The history of transgenderism and its erasure of lesbians and gays”. The word “play” in this sentence serves to discredit the organisers.
Another talk scheduled was a discussion of the implications of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Act 2022 “for counsellors, teachers and parents”. Conversion therapy was banned by law this year. It is a criminal offence to attempt to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through harmful therapy practices. The fact that Conversion Therapy was banned does not mean the legislation can’t or shouldn’t be discussed.

Neuroscience educator and parenting expert Nathan Wallis was due to appear in a panel discussion, but pulled out earlier this week. On Facebook, he made his views known: “I do not support the organisers [sic] values and they do not align with my own”. This serves as a gleeful reminder of what happens when activists are starting to call for a concerted cancel effort on social media. It is regrettable when an expert panelist pulls out of an event, however, in this case it is hardly surprising. While the real reasons for Nathan Wallis’s withdrawal will probably never be made public, no one is blaming anyone for withdrawing support. Especially someone whose livelihood depends on promoting “the right opinion” or staying silent. Hounded by an online or actual mob, many have been villified and kicked off social media, lost work opportunities, their jobs, and have even been physically assaulted or felt compelled to leave the country, for voicing their opinion about the issue.

In the very next sentence, Hubbard suggests to readers how they can get involved with cancelling the event. She even includes a handy link: A change.org petition calling for the conference venue, the Rutherford Hotel, to cancel their arrangements with organisers attracted 3500 signatures by 10am on Friday.

Hubbard then provides an example of yet another way the conference can be cancelled: Southland GP Dr David Sar Shalom works with rainbow youth and is circulating a letter to be sent to the Royal College of General Practitioners raising concerns about the conference.

Here are Dr David Sar Shalom’s arguments why the event should be cancelled. Instead of substance, he uses his position:

He described the event as “outrageous”, “wrong”, “mind-blowing”, and “upsetting”. The outrage of a medical doctor - however persuasive it might sound - does not render something outrageous or wrong. The conference might be upsetting for him, but that is not an argument for preventing a discussion about the issue.
“I don't know how an association of therapists would think that this is actually beneficial to the people that they're meant to be treating. Here, he - and Hubbard by extension - uses condescension, implying they know best. Dr Shalom makes his judgement without having heard any of the arguments the speakers will make at the conference. His incredulity is not an argument at all, but is intended to discredit the therapists and the organisation as a whole.
“It just goes against all logic that they would neglect to even consider the consequences of holding such an event.” This is a malicious assumption: He cannot have any knowledge of whether consequences were considered or not.

If it hasn’t been obvious so far, in the next paragraph Hubbard reveals her bias even more directly: In a statement provided to Stuff, a CATA spokesperson said the group wanted to “provide information from a child development position”.
Instead of providing this CATA statement to her readers, she introduces and extensively quotes from a counter statement from the New Zealand Psychological Society who was quick to distance itself from the event:
The New Zealand Psychological Society said on Friday it was concerned about the conference. In a statement said the proposed conference programme did not reflect evidence-based best practice in working with transgender or gender-diverse children and adolescents. Examining the bias, hyperbole, misrepresentations and inaccuracies of that statement exeeds the scope of this article.

Next, and seemingly at random, a graph about “non-binary and transpeople who experience negative housing events” is placed within the counter statement. It has nothing to do with the CATA conference, but has a pile-on effect to whip up emotions further.

Hubbard returns to Dr David Sar Shalom:
Shalom said while there was freedom of speech, that came with the responsibility to provide accurate information based on science and evidence, and not to use fear and misinformation that could very well be very detrimental to an already very vulnerable community.
This is a good example for a manipulative “argument” that Hubbard chooses to quote. The doctor states that freedom of speech comes with responsibility to provide accurate information based on science and evidence. In the same sentence, he says fear and misinformation could be detrimental to a vulnerable community. Readers might agree with both parts of the sentence. However, neither discredits the CATA Conference in any way. Dr Shalom does not know what information will be provided in the conference, yet he claims the conference will spread “fear and misinformation”. To intensify the emotional effect on readers, he uses the loaded term “vulnerable community”.The Southland GP also does not shy away from admitting his involvement in getting the conference cancelled: He said GPs in Nelson involved with parent and caregiver support groups had been reaching out to the hotel where the event was going to take place, and to some speakers individually.

Hubbard goes on to to quote yet another proponent of “transgenderism”, signalling her absolute allegiance to the ideology by using the proponent’s “preferred pronouns”:
University of Otago, Wellington research fellow Dr Brodie Fraser, who has done research into the discrimination Takatāpui and LGBTIQ+ people face in the housing market, said they didn’t think speakers like this should be platformed.

The following quotes are presented as “arguments” against the conference:
“To me, it just seems straight up to be fear mongering amongst parents who might not have the information that they need to be able to support their children.” Readers waiting for an explanation for what the “fear mongering” might consist of will be disappointed.

Fraser said for parents, the topic might be something new, and it was easy to “get very worried” about their kids. It could be confronting for them having to come to grips with the fact that “maybe your child isn't who you thought they were, or they're wanting to explore who they are”. No doubt parents are worried about their children. But again – how does this discredit the CATA Conference whose organisers’ and speakers’ concern is for the well-being of children?

But research showed that the most important thing parents could do for children who were exploring their gender or wanting to transition was just to love and support them, let them go through the process, and respect them through that, they said. The phrase “research showed” should always raise red flags when the reasearch is not referenced. However, more importantly, hidden in this paragraph is is the core message of the article, meant to serve as the final blow to squash the conference. The sentence’s wordiness should not distract readers from what Dr Fraser is actually saying:

Only parents who allow transition without question are loving and supporting.

Having arrived at this conclusion - the word preclusion might be more appropriate here - the article’s remaining paragraphs are a repetitive assortment of statistics, numbers and claims. Checking their veracity would certainly be an eye opener. However, whether true or false – none of it touches on the legitimacy of the conference. When last we checked, New Zealand was a democracy that accommodates a multitude of opinions. To agitate for the cancellation of a legitimate conference, to prevent concerned therapists, parents, teachers, and the public from discussing controversial matters does not fit into the image of ourselves as an open, progressive, inclusive, respectful, kind society.

*see Marg Curnow’s blog post “NZ Media: Mouthpiece for an ideology?” about the same article.