Breaking (literally): Cathy Newman's exclusive backfires

On the social media 'expose' of a senior medic's understanding of the reality of sex

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.

Professor Jacob George

This was pursued in an 8-minute item on Times Radio including an interview with the Liberal Democrat MP, Christine ‘Society is letting trans people down’ Jardine.

It comes exactly a week after the MHRA paused the puberty blocker trial citing ‘the wellbeing of children and young people’, specifically reportedly around the age of recruitment and concerns about fertility preservation.

Here are the posts themselves, or at least the ones which have been screenshot and posted on X. Natasha Loder says she has seen more. Those which have been posted deplore the IOC allowing males to compete in female boxing, the ‘top down’ nature of gender identity policy and the ‘trampling of women’s rights by other women’: and say a ‘militant minority’ should not be allowed to undermine the rights of women. They were all posted before his appointment to the MHRA role.

Loder said ‘serious questions are being asked of the MHRA about whether its new head of medicine, avowed gender critic, Professor Jacob George ought to have been allowed to get involved with the trial.’ How these posts prevent him pursuing his regulator role with neutrality is not explained by Cathy Newman or in the original MHRA statement. Mid-morning, the MHRA issued an additional comment to journalist Sonia Sodha:

‘Civil servants, like anyone else, hold personal views but must also carry out their roles in line with the Civil Service core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. While there is no evidence to suggest that decisions taken were not impartial, Professor Jacob George is recused from further involvement in the Pathways clinical trial as a precaution’

Loder also cited this: ‘I could see they were an issue with regards to the civil service code on impartiality..to clarify: the issue here is that the MHRA and others viewed Prof George’s many tweets as problematic in relation to his role in this trial and the expectation of neutrality’. (We don’t know who ‘the others’ are, and it’s not explained.)

This defensiveness from Loder (which is due) came after a very swift and oppositional reaction to the claims made by her and Newman. It’s not a theoretical spat: a medic who understands that sex is real and important has been removed from a role overseeing research on children which intimately concerns biological sex, while others who take a strongly trans affirmative position (publicly so) remain in place.

It throws into question the neutrality of the entire MHRA as the Pathways protocol is reworked. The regulator and the Pathways team were due to be holding talks this last week about how to move forward. The MHRA statement will only generate more questions about the ‘impartiality’ of others involved in the Pathways research or oversight of it.

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 Times newspaper has picked it up here. It claims Professor George personally ‘forced the pause’ in the puberty blockers trial. But there are tells as to bias: ‘What he calls the “basic biological fact” that gender is set at birth’ for example. Notably it does not, for example, interrogate the suitability of its contributor Max Davie to work in paediatric mental health despite his views that ‘there is no compelling scientific reason to halt’ a life-changing experiment on pubescent children. This coverage is led by the Times Health Editor, Shaun Lintern, who’s also the chair of the Medical Journalists’ Association Executive Committee.

That’s where the news story stands at lunchtime on Saturday (it’s still moving) but here’s our view on the journalism involved.

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.

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.

What they consider to be neutrality is actually bias. It isn’t one-sided to say sex is real and immutable: it’s the only impartial position. In fact as journalists, we should be required to say it, as should anyone involved in puberty blocker research. They aren’t ‘opinions’ - much less opinions that should lose you a job.

Two good things that came out of last night, which was only the start of the story. The biggest is the renewed spotlight on the personal affirmative beliefs of anyone involved in ‘gender services’ and their oversight. The second is the puncturing of a small affirmative bubble. It looks like the two journalists really thought they had a super scoop, and were not expecting the response. This back-pedalling of Loder indicates that some of the pushback cut through.

We hope that it will start to dawn on other health journalists (who will all be looking at this car crash) that you cannot be neutral on sex and gender without acknowledging that some things are indisputably true, even if they land on one side of the debate. The BBC had previously declared that these things shouldn’t be said even though they’re true. It’s in a different position now editorially, but where social media is concerned - would it still discipline a staff member for posting on social media that no one can change sex? Another positive outcome from the last 16 hours is that now it’s not just the affirmative stance that looks absurd and wrong - the supposedly neutral position has also begun to seem extremely foolish and indefensible.

We’ll update with further links as and when they come. This tale could be picked up in the Sundays or even later today - the recusal of the MHRA Chief Medical Officer from puberty blockers regulation is probably too big a story to ignore.