Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven AM. In
Speaker 1: the nineteen seventies, eight children in Perth were sent to
Speaker 1: a psychiatric hospital to be treated for being transgender. Their
Speaker 1: experiences became the basis of a medical study, one that
Speaker 1: claimed kids could be cured of their identity. Now, nearly
Speaker 1: forty years after it was released, the same study is
Speaker 1: being cited in arguments against trans healthcare and being used
Speaker 1: to shape policy and law. Today, Walkley Award winning journalist
Speaker 1: and founding editor of ABC Queer Monshafter on how a
Speaker 1: forgotten experiment from another era is still influencing the cultural
Speaker 1: war over trans healthcare. It's Monday, October thirteen and just
Speaker 1: a warning, this episode discusses suicidal ideation. Please take care
Speaker 1: while listening. Thanks so much for speaking with me. Can
Speaker 1: we start with Doctor Anya Ravine? Tell me who she
Speaker 1: is and what kind of work she does.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she's a specialist in trans youth health and well being.
Speaker 2: She's a research fellow at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute
Speaker 2: in Melbourne. She's openly trans herself. Previously, she worked as
Speaker 2: a genetic pathologist at the Children's Hospital at Westmead in Sydney.
Speaker 2: Which has an adolescent gender clinic, and from working there
Speaker 2: she became aware of the fierce culture war about trans
Speaker 2: youth healthcare, how particular studies have been picked up and
Speaker 2: weaponized by the anti trans movement.
Speaker 3: One of the papers I came across was an old
Speaker 3: paper from thirty eight years ago published in Australia and
Speaker 3: it's become prominent again.
Speaker 2: One study in particular, from nineteen eighty seven was from
Speaker 2: a time where being transition ender was seen as a
Speaker 2: mental illness, compared to today where we see being trans
Speaker 2: as part of a you know, the natural expression of
Speaker 2: human diversity. But it hasn't always been viewed that way.
Speaker 1: So can you tell me more about it that nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty seven study and how it was actually conducted.
Speaker 2: The study I've been looking at was published in the
Speaker 2: Medical Journal of Australia in nineteen eighty seven, and it's
Speaker 2: based on information that was gathered at a state funded
Speaker 2: psychiatric hospital in Perth between nineteen seventy five and nineteen eighty.
Speaker 3: They were referred to as gender disordered children. It's implicit
Speaker 3: that they were expecting gender identity to return to what
Speaker 3: was expected.
Speaker 2: And the report, which was written by WA's then Director
Speaker 2: of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Services, doctor Robert Cosky, said,
Speaker 2: the children being influenced by their parents.
Speaker 3: It was decided that the way of dealing with this
Speaker 3: was to separate the children from the parents.
Speaker 2: So basically they were taken away from their parents. They
Speaker 2: were living in hospital for this period. They could see
Speaker 2: their parents for one day of a weekend and stay
Speaker 2: home for one night. The reason for that is because
Speaker 2: doctor Kosky had a theory that the parents were influencing
Speaker 2: this behavior in the children, trying to fulfill their own
Speaker 2: emotional needs through that child and were essentially encouraging what
Speaker 2: they referred to as this cross gender behavior.
Speaker 1: So the idea taken from this study was that children
Speaker 1: could grow out of being transgender, where they could be
Speaker 1: canceled out of these feelings of gender dysphoria. Is that right?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: It said that the treatment was basically successful in treating
Speaker 2: this cross gender behavior. Back then, the children were described
Speaker 2: as gender disordered and it was basically suggesting that psychotherapy
Speaker 2: could be used to treat this behavior. These kids were
Speaker 2: hospitalized because they were displaying what the report describes as
Speaker 2: cross gender behavior, and it's clear that the intention was
Speaker 2: to stop that and we now know that such practices
Speaker 2: are very dangerous. They don't work, and they cause long
Speaker 2: term psychological harm.
Speaker 1: And despite that, as you say, the study is currently
Speaker 1: being cited in the debate on trans healthcare. So tell
Speaker 1: me more about how it's being brought up.
Speaker 2: So it's being used in US courts, it's being used
Speaker 2: in lobbying medical bodies and governments in current debates about
Speaker 2: gender affirming care. It's being cited by opponents of gender
Speaker 2: affirming care. So even though it's decades old and from
Speaker 2: a time we're views on being trans were much different
Speaker 2: than they are today, there are quite a few examples
Speaker 2: where this particular study is being cited. There's a US
Speaker 2: Supreme Court case about the US state of Tennessee banning
Speaker 2: puberty blockers and hormone treatment for the treatment of gender
Speaker 2: dysphoria in minors. It's being cited there.
Speaker 5: US Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning medical treatments
Speaker 5: for transgender miners, landmark ruling with implications across the country.
Speaker 5: It means transition care will be mostly legal in blue
Speaker 5: states and mostly illegal in red states.
Speaker 2: There was evidence submitted to the Bulgarian Supreme Court saying
Speaker 2: that gender nonconformity isn't something a person is born with,
Speaker 2: but is due to psychological influences. It's cited there. In Australia,
Speaker 2: the National Association of Practicing Psychiatrists has written a clinical
Speaker 2: guide on how doctors should care for gender diverse youth
Speaker 2: and it also cites the paper again referring to psychological,
Speaker 2: family or social influences as opposed to it again it
Speaker 2: just being a natural part of human diversity.
Speaker 6: In the National Association of Practicing Psychiatrists, we've put out
Speaker 6: a guide that says people, particularly the doctors, need to
Speaker 6: look into this much much more closely and identify what
Speaker 6: other things are behind the presentation of the child. Now,
Speaker 6: sometimes that'll mean that the child.
Speaker 2: Back in twenty nineteen in Australia, professor John Whitehall, who's
Speaker 2: a professor of pediatric and child health from the Western
Speaker 2: Sydney UNI, he referred to the paper in a letter
Speaker 2: to the then Health Minister Greek Hunt, requesting a parliamentary
Speaker 2: inquiry into gender affirming care. So this is really being
Speaker 2: used in present day setting.
Speaker 1: So it's being cited both abroad and here in Australia.
Speaker 1: Do we know whether it's affecting practice or not.
Speaker 2: I don't have direct evidence of that, but according to
Speaker 2: Anya and researchers I've spoken to, it is having an impact.
Speaker 2: It's influencing policies and laws that affect the lives of
Speaker 2: trans kids today because it's being used as evidence for
Speaker 2: opponents of gender affirming care.
Speaker 1: Coming up, what happened to the children from the study? Mine,
Speaker 1: You've been looking into the Costky study, which is widely
Speaker 1: cited when people are arguing and gender affirming care for
Speaker 1: young people, and you've actually spoken with one of the
Speaker 1: people who was part of this study as a child,
Speaker 1: So what can you tell me about them?
Speaker 2: So Jane believes she was one of these eight children
Speaker 2: who referred to in the Coski report. The actual names
Speaker 2: of the kids who were part of this treatment program
Speaker 2: aren't accessible because of privacy laws, but Jane's hospital admission
Speaker 2: details her medical records that she accessed through FOI aligned
Speaker 2: closely with one of the children whose case study five,
Speaker 2: and in the Coski report itself, it has details like
Speaker 2: ten years old male wants to be a girl, cross dresses,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 7: Mum caught me with some ghost clothing on and being
Speaker 7: sort of mid seventies. Not knowing what else to do,
Speaker 7: she went and spoke to our local family doctor.
Speaker 2: The doctor recommended this psychological assessment of Jane, and because
Speaker 2: at the time, gender nonconformity was viewed as something that
Speaker 2: was wrong, she was admitted to this treatment program at
Speaker 2: Stubbs Terrorist Children's Psychiatric Hospital in nineteen seventy five and
Speaker 2: she was there for nearly six months. She was closely
Speaker 2: monitored during her time there.
Speaker 7: I was subjected to random checks with my clothing just
Speaker 7: to make sure I wasn't wearing any sort of fear
Speaker 7: whale underclothes. Had to sort of go to the toilet
Speaker 7: if I was going to keep before, I have the
Speaker 7: door open so they could check that I wasn't just
Speaker 7: sitting down to pee, that I actually stood like a boy.
Speaker 7: In urinated.
Speaker 2: If she did spend time with a group of girls
Speaker 2: while she was at the center, she'd be separated and
Speaker 2: would have to go and play with a group of boys.
Speaker 2: She wasn't allowed to play with dolls that sort of thing.
Speaker 2: So basically, she clued on to the fact that if
Speaker 2: she didn't behave like a girl, she was treated more
Speaker 2: favorably and had a better chance of getting out of
Speaker 2: this program, So she suppressed her sense of gender so
Speaker 2: she could get out, and she was able to leave
Speaker 2: after nearly six months. She says that her mother was
Speaker 2: told at the beginning of this program she'd only be
Speaker 2: in there for two weeks, and yet was in there
Speaker 2: for nearly six months.
Speaker 1: What happened to Jane eventually? Did she go on to
Speaker 1: live a life? What kind of impact did that experience
Speaker 1: have on her mom?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so when she got out of there, she suppressed
Speaker 2: her gender.
Speaker 7: When I came out, I had suppressed my sense agenda
Speaker 7: so far down because I was worried that I would
Speaker 7: be sent back to the psych hospital.
Speaker 2: It took her twenty two years to come out as transgender.
Speaker 2: Before she affirmed her gender. She actually got married to
Speaker 2: a wonderful woman called Deb and had kids and things
Speaker 2: were going all right, but Deb, her partner, noticed signs
Speaker 2: of Jane unraveling. She knew that something was going on there.
Speaker 2: Jane was quite depressed, drinking a lot, and basically said,
Speaker 2: you know what is going on here?
Speaker 4: I said, what's going on? And she kind of told me,
Speaker 4: and then she told me what happened that Stubbs terrorist.
Speaker 4: So I said, why don't you just like move out
Speaker 4: for a bit and decide who you want to be
Speaker 4: or who you need to be, and then we'll see
Speaker 4: what happens from there.
Speaker 2: So they did separate for a while. Jane says it
Speaker 2: got to the point where she felt she had two options.
Speaker 2: One was suicide and the other was transitioning.
Speaker 7: After that, I made the decision to transition. I felt
Speaker 7: a lot lighter in myself that I would prod finally
Speaker 7: see myself being who I always believe myself to be.
Speaker 1: So we mentioned that the basis of the report is
Speaker 1: that with counseling, kids might decide not to transition, But
Speaker 1: as you just said, that clearly isn't the case for Jane,
Speaker 1: and wasn't the case for Jane. It took decades for
Speaker 1: her to be able to live as she really wants
Speaker 1: to live and is living. So what was it like
Speaker 1: for Jane to realize that she's been used as a
Speaker 1: case study to pedal these really damaging myths.
Speaker 2: She was shocked. She had no idea that this medical
Speaker 2: report existed. She had no idea it was being used
Speaker 2: in arguments today about gender affirming care and young people.
Speaker 2: She says she never consented to being part of a
Speaker 2: research report, so, you know, there are a whole lot
Speaker 2: of ethical issues here. She's very aware of the debate
Speaker 2: that is going on today and she just felt it
Speaker 2: was so important to set the record straight because she
Speaker 2: didn't want this harm to continue with young transgender diverse
Speaker 2: people today.
Speaker 1: How common is it that out data studies like this
Speaker 1: one are used without proper scrutiny to push a line
Speaker 1: in debates around transgender healthcare.
Speaker 2: I'm told by doctor Anyrravin, the researcher, that it is
Speaker 2: quite common. The only study that we've interrogated is nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty seven study. But you know, trans healthcare, it's super
Speaker 2: complex and reviews have shown that there needs to be
Speaker 2: more research in this space even now. But the current
Speaker 2: evidence base and expert consensus internationally recommends the gender affirming model,
Speaker 2: so supporting a trans or gender diverse young person to
Speaker 2: live as the gender that they identify with. Currently, you know,
Speaker 2: Queensland has put a pause on gender affirming care for
Speaker 2: new trans and gender diverse patients under the age of eighteen,
Speaker 2: and in response to this, the federal government is conducting
Speaker 2: a national review of trans healthcare guidelines for young people,
Speaker 2: and the aim of that is to develop new national standards.
Speaker 2: And then there was a recent review in New South
Speaker 2: Wales based on the gender program at the Westmea Children's Hospital,
Speaker 2: and that found that puberty suppression treatments are safe, but
Speaker 2: it also called for more long term research.
Speaker 1: And finally, min what can you tell us about what
Speaker 1: life is like for Jane now?
Speaker 2: She's really happy. She and Deb got back together. They're
Speaker 2: still together now after nearly forty years. They got remarried
Speaker 2: in twenty nineteen and her Deb tells the story of
Speaker 2: how it was beautiful because Jane got to be the
Speaker 2: bride as well, and it was a really special time
Speaker 2: for them.
Speaker 4: Jane's out of shell was different, but intrinsically she was
Speaker 4: still the same person and it was really nice for
Speaker 4: her to be out of your bride.
Speaker 7: I absolutely feel good in my skin now. I know
Speaker 7: who I am. I'm Jane.
Speaker 1: That is it.
Speaker 7: If you don't like me, you don't like me. If
Speaker 7: you do like me, you do like me.
Speaker 1: But this is who I am.
Speaker 2: You know, they've got three kids, they've got grandkids, they
Speaker 2: live a happy life. Prior to discovering the existence of
Speaker 2: this report, she didn't want to think about her time
Speaker 2: at Stubbs Terrace because it was triggering. You know, there
Speaker 2: was a lot of you know, scars and hurt there
Speaker 2: from that time. But given that this debate is raging today,
Speaker 2: it was so important for her to set the records,
Speaker 2: so that's why she's revisited this. Currently, conversion practices are
Speaker 2: illegal in most parts of the country. They were banned
Speaker 2: in Victoria, Queensland, the Act, South Australia and New South Wales,
Speaker 2: but they are still legal in WA. The government they're
Speaker 2: committed to change back in twenty twenty two, but it
Speaker 2: hasn't happened yet and advocates are demanding that they introduced
Speaker 2: that legislation now. So that's also part of the reason
Speaker 2: why Jane has told her story.
Speaker 1: Well one, thank you for your reporting on this and
Speaker 1: thank you so much for coming on the show.
Speaker 2: Oh My pleasure, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: You can read Mon's full report on the ABC website
Speaker 1: and watch your TV story for seven point thirty on IV.
Speaker 1: Also in the news, hackers have released a personal data
Speaker 1: of five point seven million Quantus customers onto the dark
Speaker 1: web after the company refused to pay a ransom. The
Speaker 1: cyber criminal collective responsible stole the data from the cloud
Speaker 1: technology giant salesforce in July and gave the company a
Speaker 1: deadline to negotiate payment or risk having the details released.
Speaker 1: Quantas has maintained that it will not negotiate with criminals.
Speaker 1: The airline was one of forty companies targeted, including Toyota, Arkia,
Speaker 1: Google and Air France. And thousands of people have gathered
Speaker 1: in Tel Aviv over the weekend to celebrate the imminent
Speaker 1: return of Israeli hostages held in Gaza for more than
Speaker 1: two years. US Envoy Steve Witkoff addressed the crowds alongside
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's daughter of Vanka Trump and husband Jared Kushna,
Speaker 1: both of whom were involved and cease fire negotiations. Hamas
Speaker 1: said it will release the remaining Israeli hostages beginning on
Speaker 1: Monday morning local time. It's expected twenty hostages remain alive
Speaker 1: and the bodies of another twenty six who have died
Speaker 1: will be returned. I'm Daniel James. This is seven am.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening
Speaker 3: And