Dispatches from Deutschland: If You Know Nothing, You Will Believe Everything (Part 2)
TransTeensSorgeBerechtigt on how journalists failed to do their job when interviewing the most important gender expert in Germany.
In part one we read about the collapse of Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazine’s standards in the face of gender ideology. In part two we will look at what happened when Professor Georg Romer was interviewed in the grand dame of German publication, Der Spiegel.
Interview in Der Spiegel (April 2024)
Der Spiegel is one of the most significant and influential news magazines in Germany and Europe, renowned for its in-depth investigative journalism, rigorous standards, and its pivotal role in shaping public discourse. Did the Der Spiegel journalist Veronika Hackenbroch do better than her Süddeutsche Zeitung counterparts? Unfortunately, no. The interview with Professor Georg Romer, the director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and co-founder of the Centre for Transgender Health at the University Hospital of Münster, was disappointingly superficial, much like the interview in Süddeutsche Zeitung.
As we observed in part one, journalists tend to treat Romer with undue deference. He is not just any expert; he is the head honcho at the commission that crafted Germany's latest guidelines on gender issues in youth. What is astonishing, is the reluctance to dive deeper when Romer gives answers that warrant serious scrutiny.
In the course of the Der Spiegel interview, Hackenbroch asked Romer if the recently published Cass Review, would make any difference in Germany. Romer, a known advocate for the Dutch Protocol, dismissed the need to change the guidelines and mentioned "many similarities" between the Cass Review and the German draft. Which similarities? What about the differences? Romer downplayed the differences which are significant, especially in terms of scientific scrutiny and recommendations for treatment. Given that Hackenbroch, did not push for details, one has to wonder about her suitability.
In another example, the Cass Review highlighted the lack of long-term evidence for treatments like those in the Dutch Protocol. To her credit, Hackenbroch, asked Romer about the scarcity of long-term studies. He claimed they are too costly and require sustained funding. This was despite his previous assertion that the research if growing. He also stated that "we" have 25 years of treatment experience, as if that alone, validated the approach. Unfortunately, Hackenbroch did not press and simply accepted Romer’s answer. Here is where the follow-up questions should have been relentless:
Who exactly is this "we"? The Dutch Protocol was still in its initial stages 25 years ago.
How does one track long-term effects without actual studies?
With the Dutch Protocol under scrutiny across Europe, does Romer feel any pressure to justify his methods?
Why hasn't there been critical research into long-term effects on bone, brain, sexual development, or fertility?
Moreover, Romer's response to the lack of studies was to point out that in medicine, "best practice" often evolves from clinical experience before studies catch up. This is a cop-out, given the lack of evidence for benefits and risks as noted by the experts assisting Hilary Cass. Disappointingly, Romer was also allowed to speak of "actual treatment figures" without spelling out the numbers or revealing the sources. When discussing the increasing number of children and young people who feel "uncomfortable in their own gender," he warned about distinguishing between those "temporarily trying out queer lifestyles" and those needing "real" treatment, yet he provided no concrete numbers. This raised crucial questions that Hackenbroch should have pursued, for instance:
Can you really rule out that those of your patients who are just 'trying out' will not end up getting treatment if your attitude is so affirmative?
Do you have any figures on how many adolescents in Germany are treated with puberty blockers or hormones and for how long?
Romer insisted that "body-modifying gender reassignment treatment" helps with "mental health problems" in adults and that the "available" data indicate the same for adolescents. What data? Is it appropriate to blur the lines between adults and adolescents? This directly contradicts the Cass Review's findings.
Incredibly, the interview concluded with Romer calling for more "reasonable scientific debate." But how can there be a debate if it is too expensive and bothersome to gather evidence? Why ignore the evidence of the Cass Review? Romer’s statement undermines the very principle of evidence-based discourse, and Hackenbroch allowed him to get away with it. Journalists are supposed to do their research because, novelist Marie Ebner-Eschenbach observed, if you know nothing, you’ll believe everything. This believing is especially improper when dealing with a subject as precarious as this one. The stakes are high, and parents and children deserve better.
Related links:
Original interview in Der Spiegel (4/2024)
The above text was originally published in German at the website of TransTeensSorgeberechtigt
TransTeensSorgeBerechtigt is a parent's network and interest group, aimed at informing parents about ROGD and raising awareness among policymakers about the medicalization of ROGD youth.
Genspect publishes a variety of authors with different perspectives. Any opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect Genspect’s official position. For more on Genspect, visit our FAQs.