Formal complaint to NZME re: Herald NOW interview

This morning I appeared on a live interview with Ryan Bridge for NZME's Herald NOW about the Minister for Sport and Recreation directing Sport NZ to delete their guidelines for transgender inclusion, and to remove any mention of "transgender" from their website or resources. Sport NZ have now removed the entire rainbow inclusion section from their website - a move that echoes Trump's erasure of transgender people from government websites in the USA.

I was sent a summary of the line of questioning prior to the interview, which I agreed to. I was under the impression I would be speaking to the impact this is having for our communities, who already do not engage with community sport and recreation to the same level as their cisgender peers, and what this might mean for community sporting organisations.

None of those questions were asked. Instead, I was spoken over, berated, and pressed to agree with Bridge's opinion - presented as fact - that all transgender women inherently pose a threat to cisgender women in community sport and recreation. The following is my formal complaint to NZME about the matter. Some names of NZME staff have been removed to protect their privacy.

Tēnā koutou,

I'm writing to express my incredible disappointment, and make a formal complaint, about this morning's live coverage of the Sport NZ story on Herald NOW. I was approached by a reporter to give comment to this story, which I agreed, and requested a summary of the line of questioning, which was provided upthread and duplicated here:

• What’s been the reaction of the transgender community to this decision?  
• What are the options for transgender athletes now? Is it viable for there be a separate category for transgender athletes? 
• Do transgender women hold an unfair advantage over cis female athletes? Why/why not? 
• Proponents of transgender athletes in sports argue biological data is limited, and often methodologically flawed – can you explain this

The reporter noted: "Ryan may not get to all of these questions, or may go off script a little".

I agreed to the interview under the impression that I was there to speak to my professional experience and perspective as a rainbow community advocate, about the impacts of this decision on our communities, and what this might mean for community sporting organisations.

This morning, none of these questions were asked. Ryan took the following line of questioning:

• "Why is it that, in community sport, someone that has the advantages of being born male, in a boxing ring for example, should be able to take on women?
• "But look at the firestorm that it's caused. Can you understand, if you're in a boxing ring, you're a woman, you're in the boxing ring and the person that's punching you in the head with gloves on was born a male, had the advantages of being a male, and we know scientifically that there are huge advantages to being born male in terms of muscle mass and development?"

At this point Bridge interrupted my answer after half a sentence - to make a statement of his own opinion.

• "Come on, Jennifer, let's be real. If you're born male, then you have, not only in terms of the amount of muscle that you have but that speed at which it develops through puberty, that's a scientific fact."
• "Jennifer, let's just be real. If you look at a bunch of dudes and you look at a bunch of women, generally, the men are taller and musclier."

At this point, while I was trying to bring the interview back to my area of expertise and the issue I was invited to give comment on, Bridge attempted to interrupt me again, which I did not allow. 

• "Here's a question for you then, Jennifer. If it's about inclusion and about people feeling accepted and not being bullied, do you think that societal acceptance of trans people in sport is now better as a result of these guidelines, or worse?"

Throughout the interview, Bridge constantly interrupted me, stuck to a single-issue line of questioning that differed substantially from the reason I was given for my interview, and seemed to argue for his personal views on the matter, presenting them as a matter of fact. His questions were framed with a pre-supposed outcome and did not relate to the matter at hand - the removal of optional guidelines that increase trans and non-binary community participation in sport well beyond the matter of who plays with who, and the total removal of anything referencing rainbow communities from Sport NZ's website at the request of the Government. Bridge had an incredibly disrespectful approach towards me throughout the interview.

In comparison, Bridge's interview immediately prior about this issue gave the interviewee ample time and space to discuss the matter without interruption, across a number of aspects relating to the topic. Bridge treated the interviewee with respect and consideration.

It's my view that this interview and coverage breaches the following Media Council Principles:

1. Accuracy, Fairness, and Balance

Bridge's line of questioning presupposed an outcome - that it is inherently unsafe for transgender and cisgender women to play sport together. This is not a neutral position, and is the position taken by Save Women's Sport Australasia - who were interviewed immediately prior and argue that this theoretical issue overrides the documented disparities transgender and non-binary New Zealanders face when participating in community sport and recreation, which the Sport NZ guidelines intended to address.

I was under the impression I would be the "balance" voice on the needs of our communities, our right to participate in our local communities, and the impacts this directive will have for our communities and community sporting organisations.

By taking the line of questioning Bridge did, he removed my ability to give balance to the story, meaning the final story privileges one side of the matter.

2. Comment and Fact & Columns, Blogs, Opinion, and Letters

Throughout the interview, Bridge continually presented his own opinion as a matter of scientific fact: that transgender women always have an inherent advantage against or pose a threat to cisgender women, even in community sport:

"Why is it that, in community sport, someone that has the advantages of being born male, in a boxing ring for example, should be able to take on women?"

"if you're in a boxing ring, you're a woman, you're in the boxing ring and the person that's punching you in the head with gloves on was born a male, had the advantages of being a male, and we know scientifically that there are huge advantages to being born male in terms of muscle mass and development?"

"Come on, Jennifer, let's be real. If you're born male, then you have, not only in terms of the amount of muscle that you have but that speed at which it develops through puberty, that's a scientific fact."

"Jennifer, let's just be real. If you look at a bunch of dudes and you look at a bunch of women, generally, the men are taller and musclier." - this line, in and of itself and out of context may not be incorrect - but this is a visual generalisation, not a matter of scientific evidence or fact.

The matter of whether or not transgender women, as a whole, have an advantage over, or pose a safety threat to, cisgender women in competitive sport - let alone community sport - is not a settled one. For example, a recent review article found that after two years on hormone therapy, transgender women have "little to no advantage over cisgender women in a 1.5 mile run and sit-ups", that after 4 years there is "no performance difference between the groups", and that "relative percentage lean mass, fat mass, haemoglobin, and VO2 peak corrected for weight was no different to cisgender women". Another recent study found that trans women athletes had lower lung function, lower relative jump height, and lower relative cardiorespiratory fitness compared to cisgender women athletes. 

As I mentioned in the interview, despite being eligible since 2004, no transgender woman has won a medal at the Olympics. There is no domination of transgender women in elite competitive sport - because we don't play, because of the issues the guidance intended to address.

Bridge's line of questioning also oversimplifies the issue - at a community sporting level, there is a huge variation in athletic ability amongst cisgender women, as there is amongst cisgender men. Does a cisgender ex-competitive contact sport player who has played at an elite level pose a threat to their cisgender peers, because of the difference in their ability? Is every single cisgender man a threat to every single cisgender woman? Of course not - because some cisgender women are stronger than some cisgender men, because people's bodies and athletic ability vary wildly. To declare that every single transgender women is obviously a threat to cisgender women is a matter of personal opinion - it is not rational, it is not common sense, and it is not backed by the evidence.

These are issues that are not settled. A viewer of Bridge's programme this morning would come away with a different impression, because Bridge continually emphasised his own opinion as scientific fact and common sense, speaking over me - an invited expert to give comment on this issue - to do so.

3. Subterfuge

As I have raised, I was asked to give this interview to speak about the impact this issue is having on our communities, and the impact it might have for community sporting organisations. Had NZME approached me asking me to discuss the matter of whether transgender women pose a threat to cisgender women, I would have declined - as I think Bridge and his staff well know. 

After the interview, I contacted the reporter who arranged my interview to raise my concerns, saying: "that was not the interview I was expecting. I appreciate things change on the day, but I was here to talk about the impact this is having on our community. That was a monotonous line of questioning about biological advantage that felt like a setup".

The reporter responded: "Had I had known he held that stance so strongly I would have urged him to stick to the question line more - this will be discussed in our news meeting. I did preface the caveat that he'd go off script but I see he didn't even follow them. I should have briefed him more carefully." The reporter's response did not contain an apology.

Whether this was an intentional decision made by the Herald NOW team, or an individual decision made by Bridge, I was not informed about the purpose of the interview, not asked about the issues I had been asked to speak to, treated with disrespect, spoken over and cut off repeatedly when I attempted to speak to my area of expertise, and continually pushed by Bridge to agree with his strongly held opinion as if it were a matter of scientific fact.

This was a deeply unprofessional interview. I was misled - intentionally or not - by Herald NOW, and faced with a disrespectful, forceful, and unprofessional line of questioning that differed significantly from how the interview was presented to me.

I believe the Herald NOW coverage is in breach of multiple Media Council standards. I am seeking a formal, public apology from Bridge and NZME for their approach to this issue, and believe that action is required to rectify the matter of balance. I am prepared to make a formal complaint to the Media Council about this issue.

Nā,
Jennifer Shields

While Sport NZ's website has been wiped clean, most of the content was archived by Wayback. Gender Minorities Aotearoa have collected the guidance and resources on their website.

If you're involved with a community sporting organisation - the Government's direction to Sport NZ doesn't compel you to do anything. Take a look at the resources, use them - and help trans people in Aotearoa connect with their local sport and recreation communities.