I am showing that it was bad enough that a media outlet's American branch felt it necessary to point out. I don't need any media company to report on anti-trans bias in the British press, I can read and see it for myself. If you can't see it after doing some reading for yourself, then you and I are not operating with a shared definition of what it means to have an anti-trans bias. There's nothing supposed about it. It's there in black and white.

Standards of Care version 8 chapter 7

Its practice wasn't sound. There is no sound public healthcare option for trans people, let alone trans youth, in the UK.

Stranger, I'm quite sure you aren't reading what I'm saying. I'm talking about bias in the British press. Getting some facts right while spinning them to paint transness in a negative light is still anti-trans. The problem with trans healthcare in the UK is not that too many kids were getting drugs, but that so few trans youth were being seen compared to the number of referrals. The wait lists for first assessments are astronomically high.

Yes, even the Guardian. It was so bad there that at one point the Guardian in America said something.

Here it is.

When I say there's an anti-trans bias in the British press, I don't mean they're using "facts I don't like", I mean that the British press is well-known by the trans community for sensationalizing, fear-mongering, and spinning stories to paint trans people in a negative light.

See for yourself.

Feel free to dig into the issue and I'm sure you'll agree. There's nothing pretend about the anti-trans bias in the British press.

No, and I wouldn't be too eager to trust the British press on anything involving transgender people.

In an effort to thrive, rice has slowly, over millennia, cultivated increasingly useful humans.