SEEN in journalism points out, and underlines, that what sex people are is not a belief or opinion.

For those catching up on the drama, here’s an overview of what happened last night and this morning (February 27 – 28) with Cathy Newman, Economist Health Editor Natasha Loder, and Professor Jacob George.

At tea-time yesterday Cathy Newman announced on X that she’d seen social media posts from Professor Jacob George, the recently appointed Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the medical regulator the MHRA, and that after they were brought to the attention of the MHRA he was recused (according to Loder, by the MHRA, indicating it wasn’t voluntary) of oversight of the Pathways puberty blocker research.

…

Last night campaigners and journalists, plus anyone with the use of the search function on social media, immediately began to investigate, or ‘unearth’ the social media history and public declarations of other senior officials involved in specialist health oversight including ‘gender’ protocols.

There’s Jonathan Fennelly-Barnwell, James Palmer, Matt Westmore, and the entire Health Research Authority, for example. The story won’t end here, more able reporters are pursuing it, and as soon as any new Pathways protocol is released, the controversy will flare again. Is it really a disqualifier to public health office to understand that sex is real, it’s not mutable, that men and women are different, and that the difference matters? Over at Civil Service SEEN they’ve established that it isn’t. These are not only facts, they are lawfully held beliefs. If it is a disqualifier, why aren’t equally strong affirmative beliefs also a problem? The MHRA will regret its decision and probably already is.

…

The two correspondents concerned elevated this expose above the many questions, uncertainties and safeguarding fears around the Pathways puberty blocker experiment on children, who were originally to be recruited as young as eight. For Natasha Loder to describe these concerns as a ‘Pathways Pile-on’ (in an aside, no less) is a serious abrogation of her responsibility as an health editor. As well as minimising the multiple strands of that story, both missed the real top line last night, which was how on earth could such a serious, senior and respected figure as Professor George be removed so summarily over such loose ‘offences’ when nothing he posted (well before his appointment, remember) was untrue. The possibility that a chief medical officer was recused because he understands sex is real and isn’t afraid to say so is a scandal all of its own.

In the Times Radio interview, Cathy Newman complained about a ‘glaring failure of vetting by the MHRA’ and suggested that Christine Jardine raise the issue with MPs on the Women and Equalities Select Committee, of which she is a member. At one point she even suggests Professor George should be chucked off the MHRA completely, so sure is she that ‘biological sex’ is only a controversial opinion.

Sums it up. What sex people are is “a controversial opinion” as opposed to a fact.

Imagine if we did that about everything we know. Driving a car into a brick wall at high speed might or might not cause injury. Placing your hand firmly on a red-hot stove burner might or might not cause pain. Jumping off the roof deck of a 50-story building might or might not be fatal. It’s all controversial.

It was based, as was Loder’s position, as was the MHRA statement, on the belief that the correct and neutral position on sex and gender is to sit on the fence. (Loder at one point describes the Professor’s posts as expressing an ‘ideology’.) That is: it is not neutral to say sex is real, there are two, it matters socially and you can’t swap.

It’s a flaw that besets almost every broadcast news outlet and many press outlets. They build their journalism on the premise of neutrality over whether being male or female is determined by the brain. Most build their editorial policies on exactly the same position as Newman and Loder – that biological sex and gender identity are two opinions of equal value. The broadcasters think therefore that by doing so they are impartial.

However it really means they’re building every single piece they write or broadcast on inaccuracy. The belief that you might be able to change sex is as loaded as the belief that you can. Neither is true and neither should be brought to the desk as a fact.

That’s because we know neither is true, and we have always known that neither is true. Yet here we are, watching thousands of people we used to consider sensible pretending otherwise. It’s disconcerting.

H/t Arcadia