Mick Hartley

Phoebe Davis in the Observer yesterday wrote about the Girlguiding trans ban, pulling the heartstrings with the story of a boy who, well…..here:

The parents of a six-year-old trans girl who tried to cut off her penis with plastic scissors after being told she couldn’t join Rainbows, the youngest Girlguiding group, have called the decision to ban trans girls “incredibly upsetting”.

Emily, which is not her real name, first asked about going to Rainbows in November 2025 as her friends were already members. She went to a taster session after her parents were told by the charity their daughter “would be treated like any other” child.

Of course Emily isn’t “her real name”. He’s a boy – a boy whose parents are gaslighting the poor child.

A response.

Dear Phoebe,

I read your Observer piece this morning on the reported “exodus” from Girlguiding – and I was genuinely shocked.

Not because you presented a different perspective to my recent Telegraph reporting on the problems within Girlguiding. That’s part of journalism.

But…

— Janet Murray (@jan_murray) March 29, 2026

But because you chose to include the case of a six-year-old little boy who reportedly tried to cut off his own penis – after being told he couldn’t be part of Rainbows (the section of Girlguiding for 5–7 year olds). Presenting it as evidence of a problem with Girlguiding’s admissions policy.

It is not.

It is a deeply distressing account involving a very young child – and, on any view, a serious welfare concern. Framing it otherwise is a profound failure of editorial judgement.

You also refer to this male child throughout using female pronouns, including the phrase “her penis”.

I appreciate this may reflect current editorial conventions. But it sits uneasily with the basic duty of a journalist to report clearly and accurately on material facts.

I was already aware of this case through my own reporting for the Sunday Telegraph. I made a conscious decision not to include it at this stage – both because a minor is involved and because of the ethical considerations that arise when reporting on such sensitive situations.

Those considerations are not optional.

You will know, as I do, that journalism is not simply about presenting competing narratives. It is about establishing facts clearly, handling vulnerable subjects with care and exercising judgement about what should – and should not – be used to advance an argument.

I trained as a journalist in the early 2000s – a good 20 years earlier than you did – but to my knowledge nothing has changed.

Good journalism should bring clarity. It should not muddy the facts – in order to promote an ideological position.

In this context, that means being clear about sex – a material fact that is both legally and practically relevant.

I appreciate you may be under pressure from colleagues or editors to frame stories in a particular way – or to use she/her pronouns, or the phrase “her penis”.

But that doesn’t make it right…..