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