02113-25 Kijko v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Mod Kijko complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Two men a day have trans surgery on NHS”, published on 26 May 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on the front page and continued on page ten – reported, in its sub-headline, that “[t]eenagers [are] among those opting for ‘feminising’ genital procedures to remove penis on the NHS [sic]”. The article went on to say: “Two transgender patients a day are having their penises removed on the NHS, The Telegraph can reveal. About £20 million in taxpayers’ money was spent on ‘feminising genital surgery’ for biological men, including teenagers, over the course of three years, despite warnings that the procedure causes long-term harm. A series of freedom of information requests show that 18-year-olds were among those having the ‘irreversible’ surgery that will leave them infertile”. The article also said it was “the first time figures for this surgery on the NHS have been published and data seen by The Telegraph suggest that more than a third of the patients are under 30.”

3. The article went on to report the “NHS says that the surgery ‘is not reversible’ and can cause ‘permanent infertility’”. It further said that a “number of ‘detransitioners’ have spoken about the brutal impact of the surgery. [A named individual], is suing the NHS as he says that none of his mental health issues, including depression, obsessive compulsive disorder and anxiety were addressed before he was rushed down the medical path at the age of 28.” The article also said that “[d]ata obtained from the NHS Gender Dysphoria National Referral Support Services show that it referred 2,071 biological men for ‘feminising genital surgery’ between 2021 and 2023 at a cost of the surgery of about £10,000 per procedure.” The article also reported “[y]oung people can be referred for surgery from the age of 17, though the operation cannot take place until they are 18”.

4. The article then reported: “An FOI to Nuffield Health, one of the largest providers of the surgery, revealed a large proportion of those going under the knife are under 18. While a detailed breakdown of age was not released, the data show that in 2021, of the 189 procedures carried out, 47 per cent of the patients were under 30 and the youngest was 18.”

5. The article said the co-chairman of the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender, had said: “This is a very profound surgery with long-term effects on very young men, many of whom will have comorbidities such as mental health issues or autism for which they don’t receive any assessment or care in an adult gender clinic.” It also reported that an NHS spokesman had said: “Only adults who have a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria can receive feminising surgery from a specialist NHS clinic following assessment by multiple clinicians. The current service specification has been reviewed by medical bodies including medical royal colleges, clinical associations and regulators.”

6. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline, “Two biological men a day given trans surgery on NHS”. This version of the article included the sub-headline “Teenagers among those opting for ‘feminising genital surgery’ at a cost to the taxpayer“. This version of the article was published on 25 May 2025.

7. Two days after the online version of the article was published, the reference to “a large proportion of those going under the knife” being “under 18” was amended to instead read “under 30”.

8. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it reported that - according to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request - under 18s were being given feminising genital surgery. She acknowledged that the newspaper had since corrected this reference to instead reference under 30s. She said the amendment to "under 30" was technically accurate although still slightly misleading. She said it would have been more accurate to say that the majority of those who had the surgery were over 30, and did not consider it was accurate to report a “significant amount” of under 30s were receiving the operation. The complainant also said the publication had a pattern of publishing inaccurate information on this topic and then later correcting it.

9. The complainant also said that she considered the term “biological men” to be inaccurate: she said the term “transgender women” was the accurate way to refer to such individuals. She also said the sub-headline was inaccurate, as it referenced “teenagers” prominently. She said that readers would likely interpret this term to mean individuals under the age of 18.

10. The complainant said all recipients of the surgery were consenting adults with care given to ensure informed consent. However, the article’s reference to mental health conditions suggested the opposite. She said “undue prominence” had been given to the fact that a minority of patients are younger than 30, which gave a misleading impression about the demographics of those receiving the surgery and implied that people under 30 did not have sufficient agency to consent to the surgery.

11. The complainant then said the article was inaccurate as it stressed the impact the surgery had on fertility several times, without including the fact that individuals who have the operation can choose to store their reproductive cells ahead of surgery – which meant they could then later choose to reproduce if they wanted to. She said the article misled readers into thinking the surgery ended an individual’s reproductive freedom.

12. The complainant said the article reported on one individual’s regret after having medically transitioned, but omitted to mention the thousands of transgender individuals who were very happy that they had the operation. She said the article did not explain that the rate of regret regarding these operations was very low. She added that, given the article’s reference to the fertility of those who had received the surgery, it was inaccurate for the article to omit to report that: the rate of people who regret having children was regularly reported to be much higher compared to people who regret having gender affirming surgery; that the consequences of a successful birth were “more significant; ” and the complications of childbirth were” more common and often more “significant”.

13. The complainant said the cost of the surgery and NHS’s total spend on the surgeries was presented without context, such as the cost of other surgeries to the taxpayer. She also said the article omitted to report that more affluent trans people often pay for the operation privately.

14. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code – however, it accepted it was inaccurate to report that the FOI response from a healthcare provider “revealed a large proportion of those going under the knife are under 18”. It said this inaccurate reference had come about due to human error. It added that, as soon as the error was identified – on 27 May, two days after the article was published – the article was amended to instead read “under 30”. It said that the following correction was also added to the article as a footnote:

“An earlier version of this article stated that a freedom of information request to Nuffield Health revealed that a large proportion of individuals having surgery were under 18-year-olds. This was incorrect and should have stated under 30 years of age. We are happy to correct the record.”

On the same date, it also published the following correction in its online Corrections and Clarifications column:

“An article ‘Two men a day have ‘feminising genital surgery’ on the NHS’ (May, 26) stated that a freedom of information request to Nuffield Health revealed that a large proportion of individuals having surgery were under 18-year-olds. This was incorrect and should have stated under 30 years of age. We are happy to correct the record.”

15. The day after it published the online corrections, it published the following correction on page 2 of its print edition:

“An article ‘Two men a day have ‘feminising genital surgery’ on the NHS’(May 26) stated that a freedom of information request to Nuffield Health revealed that a large proportion of individuals having surgery were under 18-year-olds. This was incorrect and should have stated under 30 years of age. We are happy to correct the record.”

16. The publication said the article reported that a “large proportion” of those undergoing surgery were under 30, which was not inaccurate: the figures showed that 47 per cent of the patients who received the surgery were under 30. It noted that the breakdown of the figures was also included in the article, and it would therefore be clear to the reader that the majority of patients receiving the surgery were over 30.

17. The publication said the term “biological men” was used to refer to a person who was born male, and it did not consider it was inaccurate to use the term in the article. It also did not consider the article’s reference to “teenagers” was inaccurate – it said any reasonable reader would view this as a reference to those of teenage age. It said at no point did the article suggest that those undergoing the surgery did not consent to the surgery.

18. Turning to the complainant’s concern regarding the article’s references to infertility, it said the article simply re-stated the fact that the surgery could lead to infertility, which is what the NHS said. It said this was not inaccurate.

19. The publication turned next to the complainant’s concern that the article breached Clause 1 by reporting an individual’s regret after the surgery and omitted to reference the fact that most individuals were happy with the surgery. It said that the complainant had not identified any inaccuracies on this point.

20. In regard to complainant’s concern that the article suggested under 30s had less agency to consent, the publication said the article factually reported on the proportion of individuals- as documented by the data – undergoing the surgery who were under 30. The publication said there was no suggestion that the figures were inaccurate and there was no suggestion in the article that those under 30 did not have sufficient agency to consent.

21. Regarding the reported cost of the NHS surgery in relation to the NHS’ total spend on these surgeries, as well as the complainant’s concern that the article had omitted important context behind these figures, the publication said the complainant had not said the reported cost was inaccurate.

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.

Findings of the Committee

22. The Committee noted that the publication accepted it had inaccurately reported - due to human error – that an FOI had “revealed” that “a large proportion of those” who had undergone a vaginoplasty for the purposes of medically transitioning were “under 18”. In fact, the FOI showed that a large proportion were under 30. Given the correct position was readily available in the FOI request upon which the article was based, and the error had come about despite this, the Committee considered the newspaper had not taken care to not publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information on this point. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

23. The next question for the Committee was whether this reference was significantly inaccurate and in requirement of a correction according to the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee noted that the article had claimed that according to an FOI request, a large proportion of under 18-years-olds were receiving gender-affirming surgery. Given this surgery is not available to under 18-year-olds on the NHS, this gave a significantly misleading impression of who was receiving these operations. As such the Committee considered the reference was significantly inaccurate and in need of correction.

24. The Committee next considered whether the corrections published by the Committee were sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii) – which requires that significantly inaccurate information is corrected promptly and with due prominence.

25. The publication had amended the reference two days after the online article was published and had also published a footnote correction as well as a correction in the online Corrections and Clarifications column. It had also published a print correction two days after the print article was published. The Committee considered all corrections were duly prompt, given they were published with a matter of days of the original inaccuracy being published.

26. The Committee noted that the online corrections appeared both as a footnote to the online article and in the publication’s Correction and Clarifications column. The print correction appeared on page two, in the publication’s usual Corrections and Clarifications column.

27. The Committee considered these locations were sufficiently prominent. The original inaccuracy had appeared on page 10 of the newspaper, and the correction had been published further forward and where readers would expect to find corrections. With regard to the online version, the original inaccuracy had appeared in the text of the online article. Given it had been removed, the Committee considered that an online footnote correction was duly prominent.

28. All versions of the correction acknowledged it was inaccurate to state an FOI request revealed that a large proportion of individuals having surgery were under 18-year-olds. It also put the correct position on record, that it was actually under 30s who were the large proportion of those receiving the surgery. The Committee was satisfied the corrections corrected the record, and were published promptly and with due prominence. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

29. The Committee turned to the remainder of the complainant’s concerns. It noted that the article did not state that a majority of those receiving the surgery were under 30. Rather, the amended article reported that the “FOI revealed a large proportion of those going under the knife are under 30.” Given 47 per cent of those who received the surgery were under 30, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate on this point. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

30. The Committee considered whether the article’s use of the term “biological men” breached Clause 1. While it noted the complainant disagreed with this term, the publication was entitled to use this term on which there is a difference in view. It explained its basis for using the term as referring to those it described as male at birth.

31. Turning to the article’s reference to teenagers, the Committee noted it was not in dispute that individuals who were 18 and 19 years old had undergone the surgery. Given this, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to report that teenagers had received the surgery, regardless of whether the proportion of teenagers receiving the surgery relative to other ages was small. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

32. The Committee noted that the article did not state as fact that non-consenting children or adults were receiving the surgery. Further, the article did not claim that under 30s did not have sufficient agency to consent. It also quoted an NHS spokesman, who set out the NHS’ position on when adults can receive the surgery: “Only adults who have a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria can receive feminising surgery from a specialist NHS clinic following assessment by multiple clinicians. The current service specification has been reviewed by medical bodies including medical royal colleges, clinical associations and regulators.” Therefore, the Committee did not consider that the article reported or implied that those who had received the surgery had not consented or were unable to do so. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

33. The Committee noted that the article had reported on what the NHS guidance had said in regard to infertility: that the surgery “is not reversible” and can cause “permanent infertility”. It was not inaccurate for the article to reference this potential risk, nor to omit to mention that people undergoing the surgery could choose to store their reproductive cells – regardless of whether this was the case, it was not in dispute that the surgery could lead to infertility without special measures being taken. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

34. The Committee next turned to the article’s reference to an individual who regretted receiving a vaginoplasty. While the complainant had said this reference was inaccurate as the article omitted to report that many individuals were content with their surgery and transition, and the proportion of people who regret having children, the Committee did not consider that this rendered the article inaccurate. Regardless of the fact that other individuals may be happy after the surgery, or regret having children, did not mean that the reported experience of the individual who regretted the surgery was inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

35. The Committee noted that the complainant did not dispute that the figures given in the article for the cost of the surgery were correct. Given this – and where the article focused on the cost of surgeries provided by the NHS, rather than by the private healthcare sector - the Committee did not consider that the complainant’s concern that the article did not mention the cost of other NHS surgeries or reference the fact that some individuals had the surgery privately rendered the article inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

36. The complainant had alleged that the publication had a pattern of publishing inaccurate articles and then correcting them. The Committee noted that the complainant had not provided any of these articles, and that its decision was therefore limited to the article which the complainant had provided to IPSO – it was not within its remit to consider the complainant’s general concerns about other news coverage. However, it noted that correcting inaccurate articles would not, generally, represent a breach of the code – provided any correction of significantly inaccurate or misleading information is published promptly and with due prominence, as required by Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

37. The complaint was upheld in part under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

38. The published corrections put the correct position on record and were offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 26/05/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 29/10/2025