Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 11 March 2021.

We have written to the BBC, and to the responsible Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden, to complain about the BBC's coverage of the Conversion Therapy debate. The one-sideness; the unwillingness to give any coverage, or credence, to those calling for caution; is deeply irresponsible, divisive, and biased. We urge others to complain as well. This issue impacts lives.

**********

Dear BBC Complaints and Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden,

We write to you to complain about the BBC's coverage of the debate around Conversion Therapy, following the recent Westminster Hall debate on this subject. In particular, we would like to point you to this piece which the BBC published today (Thursday 11 March).

The article makes clear that 'LGBT+' groups now use a definition of 'Conversion Therapy' that covers both sexual orientation and 'gender identity'. 

"Conversion therapy" refers to any form of treatment or psychotherapy which aims to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

It then proceeds with ample coverage of activists who seek to not just (quite legitimately) campaign against, but also to openly attack, the Government's cautious approach to this issue. Voice and coverage is given to '20 LGBT+ organisations', MPs who 'backed a ban', the petition signed by '250,000 people', Jayne Ozanne and James Morton (formerly of the government's LGBT+ Advisory Panel), Peter Tatchell, Stonewall, and Labour shadow equality minister, Marsha de Cordova. 

Here is one example of the BBC's inept and credulous reporting. "Ms Ozanne said there had been "a lack of engagement" with the group she runs, the Ozanne Foundation, and she accused ministers of acting against their advice." The implication seems to be that the Government should simply follow the directives of certain organisations (LGBT+ groups) and ignore everyone else. This is a shallow tactic coming from such a group; but for the BBC to credulously report, without challenge or alternative voice, is extraordinarily poor journalism and openly biased.

Where, in this article, is the BBC coverage of the voices, the campaign groups, who are deeply concerned about the way in which the concept of conversion therapy has been stretched to cover not just sexual orientation, but gender identity? Such a stretch raises the possibility that when a young person develops gender dysphoria, discomfort with their sexed body, a belief that they were 'born in the wrong body', then the only path ahead for them, from responsible adults, and all of society, will be affirmation. 

Have BBC journalists stopped to consider where 100% affirmation leads? Have they not looked at any of the readily-available research that shows that the vast majority of young people who engage with 'gender ideology' desist with the right support? Should this support; the deep talking, exploration, engagement they need; from highly experienced professionals, be banned? Do BBC journalists really think that such young people would be better off if, to a person, they proceed down an affirmation pathway that can lead to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, facial surgery, breasts cut off, penises surgically removed, 'holes' created that need to be dilated daily for life, loss of sexual pleasures, sterility? Is this a better future for our young people? Why? 

The Government is surely right to tread with care. The voices of caution in the gender ideology debate are now everywhere; group after group has formed. They are highly successful, with active and growing membership. They are engaged in policy, interacting with members of parliament and the House of Lords, challenging gender ideology in court. They represent the interests of many people up and down the country concerned by gender ideology. Yet the BBC, despite its charter, seems unwilling to make contact, to explore both sides of an argument, to desist from bias, when it comes to gender ideology. Could the BBC please do better? Try to reflect its charter? 

We would be pleased to meet to discuss, bringing representatives from these many groups.

Conservatives for Women.

**********