Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 16423-23 Green v The Sunday Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Susie Green, acting on her own behalf and on behalf of her
daughter Jackie Green, complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Sunday Times breached
Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), and Clause 12
(Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The
kids’ gender clinic that became a conveyor belt”, published on 11 February
2023.
2.
The article reported on the aftermath of the
closure of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust’s Gender and Identity
Development Service (Gids). It referenced the charity Mermaids and its previous
Chief Executive, the complainant Susie Green. The article reported that
“[a]ctivist groups from outside, such as Mermaids […] came to exert undue
influence on [Gids] and would complain if they felt things weren’t being done
their way”. The article then reported that:
“[i]n 2016 an expert in gender reassignment
surgery warned Gids that putting young boys on puberty blockers made it more
difficult for them to undergo surgery as adults, because their penis hadn’t
developed enough for surgeons to construct female genitalia. […] But senior
managers rejected calls from its clinicians to put this on a leaflet for
patients and families. In [a] book, [a previous staff member at
Gids] is quoted as saying, ‘I may be wrong, but I think [the director of Gids]
was afraid of writing things down in case they got into Mermaids’s hands.’”
3.
The article then referred again to: “Susie Green
[…] the chief executive of Mermaids”, stating that she “had taken her son
[Jackie Green], who had been on puberty blockers, to Thailand for gender
reassignment surgery on his 16th birthday. In an interview, which is still on
YouTube, Green laughingly recalls the difficulties surgeons had in constructing
a vagina out of her child’s prepubescent penis.”
4.
The article was accompanied by a photograph
showing Susie and Jackie Green. The photograph was captioned “Susie Green with
her daughter Jackie, who had gender reassignment surgery aged 16”.
5.
The article also appeared online in
substantially the same format, under the headline “How the Tavistock gender
clinic ran out of control”.
6.
The complainant said that the article was discriminatory in breach of Clause
12. The complainant said that her daughter was not relevant to the article –
which was about Gids – and therefore her gender identity as a transgender woman
was also irrelevant.
7.
The complainant also said that the article had breached Clause 12 by referring
to Jackie as her “son” and by using male pronouns in relation to her, as this
misgendered her in a pejorative manner. She said that her daughter had lived as
a girl since she was nine-years-old, and was a girl at the time referred to in
the article.
8.
Turning to Clause 2, the complainant said that her daughter had no involvement
with Mermaids and was not a public figure. Therefore, it said, her daughter had
a right to privacy which had been breached by the article. The complainant said
that the reference to the YouTube video – in which she discussed her daughter’s
surgery – and the fact that the article reported on the surgery at all breached
her daughter’s privacy. In addition, the complainant said that the article
breached her own private life by referring to her family.
9.
The complainant also said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause
1, as it had used male pronouns to refer to her daughter at the time of her
gender affirmation surgery – at which time she was living as a girl, “including
pronouns and a full social and medical transition”.
10.
The publication did not accept that the article breached the Code. It said that
the article’s use of male pronouns in relation to Jackie Green was intended
only to provide clarity to readers as to “the intention of the surgery” and
Jackie Green’s “current status”. It said that is “absolutely recognise[d]” her
current gender, but said that it must be able to report on past events in a way
that was coherent – it did not accept, therefore, that the use of male pronouns
to refer to her prior to her surgery was either pejorative or inaccurate. In
making this point, the publication referred to a Ted Talk (since removed),
during which the complaint had herself referred to Jackie prior to her
transition as her “son”. The publication’s approach when dealing with Jackie
Green’s life pre-transition was, it said, no different from the complainant’s
own approach when speaking publicly about her daughter. At any rate, the
publication did not accept that the article referenced Jackie Green’s gender
identity – it said that it only referenced her “legal and biological sex” at
the time of her surgery.
11.
The publication further noted that Jackie Green was only named once in the
article – in the photograph caption – and that this caption referred to Jackie
Green as the complainant’s daughter. The use of male pronouns, therefore, were
not tied to Jackie Green as she was now, but in reference to a television
interview which the complainant had given about her gender affirmation surgery,
and a Ted Talk during which she had spoken in depth about Jackie’s life. The
publication further said that the reference to Jackie Green’s surgery was
relevant in the context of an article which discussed the process of gender
transition for children, and where the complainant – as a previous Chief
Executive of a charity working with trans and non-binary children – and her own
background had a clear relevance to the subject matter of the article.
12.
Turning to the complaint of intrusion into the private lives of the complainant
and her daughter, the publication said that it was the complainant who had
chosen to put Jackie Green’s case in the public domain, “giving widely viewed
public talks and numerous interviews naming her and giving intimate and
extensive details of her story”. It also said that the complainant had herself
linked Jackie’s story with her own role at Mermaids. It cited a newspaper
interview in which the complainant had spoken of an ITV television drama
inspired by the case. With regard to the YouTube video showing a broadcast
interview which was referenced in the article, the publication said that the
video was publicly accessible and had over 19,000 views on YouTube.
13.
The complainant accepted that she had referred to Jackie as “her son” in the
past; however, this was to refer to her when she was six – before she
transitioned socially – rather than when she was sixteen. She did not accept
that this meant the publication was entitled to refer to her daughter using
male pronouns.
14.
The complainant said that her daughter had been absent from the public eye for
many years; even if she had previously engaged with the press in the past, that
did not give the publication the automatic right to continue to disclose
details of Jackie’s private life years after she had withdrawn from the public
eye. The complainant also said that she herself had not referenced her daughter
publicly in many years, due to her daughter’s request.
15.
The complainant also said that Jackie was protected by the 2010 Equality Act
from the point at which she came out as trans at the age of four. Therefore,
she said that her legal gender at the time of her surgery was female and the
publication had breached Clause 12 and Clause 1.
16.
The complainant also, during IPSO’s investigation, said that she considered
that the terms of Clause 3 had been breached, by way of the publication
referring to Jackie as her “son” and by using male pronouns. In making this
complaint, the complainant referenced a 2019 article published by the newspaper
which had also referred to Jackie in this manner. The complainant had
complained to IPSO about the 2019 article but had not pursued the complaint
beyond its initial stages at the time.
17.
The publication said that government guidance made clear that an individual
must hold a Gender Recognition Certificate if they wish for their affirmed
gender to be legally recognised. As Jackie Green did not hold such a
certificate at the time of her surgery, the publication did not accept that it
was inaccurate or pejorative for the newspaper to use male pronouns to refer to
her at this time – she was still, according to the publication, ‘legally’ male
at this time.
18.
The publication also said that the terms of Clause 3 relate to the behaviour of
journalists during the newsgathering process, and did not accept that the
concerns raised by the complainant represented a possible breach of Clause 3.
Relevant
Clause Provisions
Clause
1 (Accuracy)
i)
The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii)
A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii)
A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv)
The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause
2 (Privacy)*
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home,
physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii)
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private
life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of
privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of
information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in
the public domain or will become so.
Clause
3 (Harassment)*
i)
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii)
They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing
individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave
and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom
they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and
take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.
Clause
12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's,
race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any
physical or mental illness or disability.
ii)
Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless
genuinely relevant to the story
Findings
of the Committee
19.
An important factor in the Committee’s consideration of this complaint was the
material already established in the public domain about Jackie Green’s gender
identity and gender transition. This included information that had been
disclosed by Susie Green; information that had been disclosed by Jackie Green
as a child (with Susie Green’s consent); and information disclosed by Jackie
Green as an adult. The Committee considered both the nature of this material,
and the way in which it had been contextualised. The Committee also took
into account that, since the information had originally been disclosed by the
complainant and her daughter, Jackie Green had chosen to step back from public
life.
20.
The terms of Clause 2 make clear that, when considering an individual’s
reasonable expectation of privacy, account should be taken of
the complainant's own public disclosures of information, and the extent to
which the material complained about is already in the public domain. The information
disclosed by the article – the fact that Jackie Green had undergone gender
affirmation surgery at the age of sixteen, and her mother’s comments about the
surgery – had been disclosed previously in talks, broadcast interviews, and
interviews with print newspapers, some of which remained online.
21.
Taking these factors into account the Committee found that the article did not
disclose any information beyond what had been made public; it had not disclosed
additional information about Jackie that had not previously been in the public
domain as a result of disclosures from the complainant. While it acknowledged
that Jackie Green’s attitude toward public disclosures about these matters had
changed over time, the Committee considered that the complainant and her
daughter did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over the information
under complaint given the extent of this publication. The publication was
entitled to refer to such publicly accessible information, and reporting on it
did not represent an intrusion into either the complainant’s private and family
life or that of her daughter. There was no breach of Clause 2.
22.
The Committee next considered the complaint under Clause 12. It was evident
that the article made reference to Jackie Green’s gender identity; it referred
to her as previously having been the complainant’s “son” and used male
pronouns; made reference to her gender affirmation surgery and described the
nature of this surgery; and used female pronouns to refer to her in the period
after her surgery. The question for the Committee was whether these
references were irrelevant or pejorative.
23.
In deciding whether the reference was relevant, the Committee considered the
reference in the context of the article as a whole. It noted that the reference
to Jackie’s previous gender identity and surgery appeared in the context of a
reference to a “warn[ing]” made in 2016 that putting transgender girls “on
puberty blockers made it more difficult for them to undergo surgery as adults”,
as well as a claim that a call to put a warning to this effect in public-facing
literature circulated by Gids was vetoed as “[the director of Gids] was afraid
of writing things down in case they got into Mermaids’s hands.’” Read in this
context, Jackie’s gender identity and her experiences of having undergone
gender reaffirmation surgery – as well as her mother’s comment about the
surgery – were relevant to the story. The reference served to provide context
to the complainant’s campaigning work and background, and how her own
experiences – and, by extension, the experiences of her daughter as a
transgender woman – informed her campaigning role, as well as potentially
connecting to Gids’ decision to not refer to the alleged drawbacks of puberty
blockers in writing. In addition, the article did not disclose any information
about the complainants which had not already been previously disclosed. There
was, therefore, no breach of Clause 12 (ii).
24.
The complainant had also said that the use of male pronouns to refer to Jackie
at the time of her surgery was pejorative in breach of Clause 12 (i). The
Committee considered that, in the context of a reference to Jackie’s gender
affirmation surgery, and where Jackie was referred to as the complainant’s
daughter in the caption of an image showing her after her surgery, the use of
male pronouns were not prejudicial or pejorative. Rather, the pronouns conveyed
to readers that Jackie had undergone a gender transition, the use of “he”
pronouns referenced the sex she was assigned at
birth. There was no breach of Clause 12.
25.
It was clear on reading the article in its full context that Jackie Green is a
transgender woman. The Committee did not consider that the brief references to
Jackie prior to her surgery represented significantly inaccurate, distorted, or
misleading information – particular in the context of an article focussing on
Gids, rather than on the specifics of Jackie Green’s transition. There was no
breach of Clause 1.
26.
The Committee did not accept that the terms of Clause 3 must relate only to the
behaviour of journalists during the newsgathering process; while Clause 3 (ii)
makes specific reference to the physical presence and activity of journalists,
Clause 3 (i) is broader and says that journalists and publications must not
engage in certain behaviours, which include intimidation and harassment.
27.
Harassment and intimidation implies a pattern of behaviour; however, the
complainant had only referenced one article, published in 2019 – three years
before the publication of the article under complaint. The Committee did not
consider that two articles, published 3 years apart and which – in relation to
the 2022 article – referred to Jackie Green only in passing, constituted
harassment as defined by the terms of Clause 3. There was therefore no breach
of this Clause.
Conclusions
28. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
29.
N/A
Date
complaint received: 12/02/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/07/2023
Back to ruling listing