Complaint to Ofcom regarding the BBC's handling of complaints about "gender identity"
The BBC targets children with a Bitesize article “What’s the difference between sexuality and gender”, with the idea that cross-sex identification is a matter of an essential “gender identity” that can be different from your sex, and can “[sit] between male and female”:
Many people identify as male or female and see their sex and gender as the same thing. But for others their gender identity is different from the sex registered on their birth certificate (male or female).
[…]
Some people’s gender identity sits between male and female, whilst others don’t feel male or female in any way. There are a variety of terms that can be used to describe this, such as gender diverse or non-binary (neither male nor female).
As my memo argues, which is included in my complaint below, the “gender identity” essence theory of cross-sex identification is not the truth behind the matter. It’s an ideological belief imposed on children by adults with their own interests, not something that children have arrived at on their own. It is serving to confuse children, not help them.
I made the complaint before the publication of the Cass Review, however now it is also noticeable that a rift has opened in the establishment: with the Review on one side, which has come to the conclusion that there can be numerous underlying reasons that might be causing a child to be distressed regarding their sex (Cass Review, page 121), and the BBC on the other side, which suggests that children are capable of having a “personal journey” and only require affirmation, without “others [who] often feel they have a right to interfere”:
Many people feel uncomfortable with the idea that there are other sexualities besides being straight and that people can identify with a gender that is different to their sex.
[…]
Your journey is a personal one and has nothing to do with anyone who you don’t invite along with you.
I did not make this the subject of my complaint, so this subject is open for anyone else who would like to challenge the material.
Complaint to the BBC - CAS-7770998-K3R6D1
18th March 2024
Dear Orlando,
The ECU will investigate your complaint and aim to reply within 20 working days of receiving it, though some complaints take longer than others to investigate. A target of 35 working days applies to those complaints that require longer or more complex investigation.
Here are the details of your Complaint:
Dear BBC,
Your bitesize content that suggests that matters of cross-sex identification is explained by a "gender identity" that is "different from [sex]", [1] is unsupported by research, and is an idea that is harming children.
I know this, as at the onset of puberty, I had what is today called "gender dysphoria" and read research by Dr. Blanchard that described this as autogynephilia, which is the unusual male sexuality of being "attracted to the concept of oneself as a woman". The other reason for cross-sex identification in males is homosexuality, where a remarkably feminine boy may identify as a girl, which in some cases persist into adulthood, where they are also likely to be homosexual. These are the reasons behind matters of cross-sex identification.
The narrative of a "gender identity" that has somehow ended up in the wrong body, as your content suggests, is not the truth, and teaching this to children is causing a social contagion, primarily amongst girls.
Please could you read […] my short, referenced, memo that substantiates and illustrates my concerns above, as children are coming to harm over this issue: https://transpolicy.substack.com/p/trans-memo
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z6smbdm
Yours,
Orlando
28th March 2024
Dear Orlando,
Thank you for your email to the ECU.
The BBC’s complaints framework says that anonymous complaints will not normally be considered. Name and (genuine) contact details should be provided, and where they are not, the BBC may not look into the complaint.
Should you wish to provide genuine contact details via ecu@bbc.co.uk, we will be happy to investigate your complaint.
Yours sincerely
Richard Hutt
Complaints Director
28th March 2024
Dear Richard Hutt,
"Not normally consider" means that your policy allows discretion.
Given the serious nature of my complaint: that what the BBC is teaching the public, and children, is not the truth regarding matters of cross-sex identification, and that this is causing harm to children, primarily girls, I would like to ask your discretion and investigate what I am saying.
My reasons for remaining anonymous, is that this matter involves [sensitive] details of my life, as as I mention, I am talking about my own experience of what is today called "gender dysphoria". Nevertheless, I don't see being anonymous as an issue, as I have substantiated everything I have mentioned in my memo [1] with references to research.
The BBC is the first organisation I have contacted that have refused to investigate what I am saying.
[1] https://transpolicy.substack.com/p/trans-memo
Yours,
Orlando
15th April 2024
Dear Orlando
Thank you for your email. For the reasons set out in my earlier email the ECU will not be investigating your complaint. Future correspondence from you on this matter will be read but may not receive a response.
Yours sincerely
Richard Hutt
Complaints Director
Complaint to Ofcom - 01808508
15th April 2024
I would like to make the complaint that the BBC's complaints department itself has failed in diligence, by refusing to investigate my complaint regarding this content.
I do not know how this decision can be wisely justified, given the Cass Review has showed that this is an area that warrants investigation, with its findings that the medical profession has not been operating based on evidence. My complaint and attached memo similarly argues that the BBC is not operating based on evidence in this area, and is teaching a highly contested understanding of matters of cross-sex identification to children, as if it were the truth.
I have contacted charities and organisations with my concerns, including the Charity Commission and NHS. The only organisations that have thus far refused point blank to investigate what I am saying is the BBC, and Stonewall (who did not reply to my messages).
In the last month, I contacted a charity devoted to evidence-based healthcare, comprised of medical professionals. They listened and evaluated my concerns, and concluded it appropriate that they publish my concerns anonymously this summer, with the message:
“A pseudonym is used here at author's request. In this unusual circumstance we have agreed to anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic under discussion but the issues raised here are nevertheless of interest to [redacted] readers as being relevant to evidence-based treatment”.
I would like the BBC to investigate my complaint and memo, even if they come to the conclusion that they have no concerns with what I am saying. I think in this case, given all the context above, this is a reasonable expectation of diligence from a public service broadcaster.