Sorry for the sorry
The nurses' union says its apologies imply no wrongdoing by author Jason Watson, yet his paper debunking the 'trans suicide narrative' remains retracted
Apologies then, regrets now
Australia’s nursing federation has published a “clarification” following its decision to apologise and retract a journal article by mental health nurse Jason Watson, who had cited peer-reviewed studies to challenge the alarmist “trans youth suicide narrative”.
On Thursday, following intervention by the Free Speech Union of Australia, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) said that its two apologies for publishing Mr Watson’s article were “not intended to state or imply any finding that the author engaged in scientific or professional misconduct, or as to the author’s character, motives or professional competence”.
“The ANMF has made no such findings and regrets any contrary impression created by the wording of the statement.”
However, Mr Watson’s article—“What are the facts regarding trans youth and suicide? Taking a second look at the trans youth suicide narrative”—has not been republished by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal and the apologies are still online.
The July 3 and July 10 apologies—the first from the ANMF’s Victorian branch, the second from its federal office—imply that the Watson article involved “negativity and hatred” as well as “damaging and harmful opinions”.
The retraction and apologies were reportedly triggered by the Victorian branch’s “LGBTQIA+ reference group”.
The July 30 statement of clarification—posted online above each apology—says the ANMF, the country’s largest trade union, “is reviewing its editorial processes, including the processes applying to articles dealing with suicide and other sensitive clinical and public health matters”.
“The ANMF remains committed to supporting all of its members, including its LGBTQIA+ members.”
Dr Reuben Kirkham, a director of the Free Speech Union of Australia (FSU) assisting Mr Watson, said the ANMF clarification was “wholly unsatisfactory”.
“It does not correct the scientific record. It does not apologise for retracting the article. They still have the article retracted,” Dr Kirkham told GCN.
“So, until they reverse the retraction and correct the scientific record, then there is some unfinished business here, to put it mildly.
“Once [the Watson article has] been taken off the scientific record, you have the defamatory sting of a retraction.”
In a July 29 letter to the ANMF, Dr Kirkham asked for the retraction to be reversed; a statement explaining how the serious error of such a retraction would not be repeated; and an apology to Mr Watson including compensation. The FSU set an August 6 deadline for a reply.
The FSU letter to the ANMF federal secretary Annie Butler said—
“As you seem to accept, there was no scientific misconduct or any scientific errors in the article. Rather, the complaint is that the findings ostensibly caused [in the ANMF’s wording] ‘immediate and significant distress to the transgender community, the LGBTQIA+ community, and the wider community’.”
“Scientific censorship has no place in a modern democratic society, let alone in an indexed medical journal,” Dr Kirkham wrote.
“The LGBTQIA+ activists, if they have something of genuine scientific merit to say, may of course submit their own articles and reply [to Mr Watson’s article], under the usual protections for a peer reviewed publication.”
GCN has sought comment from the ANMF.
Bravo Ruben and Jason, encore! The ANMF needs to face the natural, lawful consequences resulting from its rabid, anti science conduct.
They apologized for the wrong thing and have yet to explain why his article was incorrect or otherwise not worth publishing.
If the information in the article is correct, it is essential for parents and others to have it.
If it is incorrect, the journal needs to produce the evidence and argument as to why.
This is not an argument:
Negativity and hatred have no place in our movement,” says the apology, which also implies that the article is in some way discriminatory and creates an “unsafe environment for those seeking support”.
Where does the retracted article do this?