Cass Review: Trans Activists Forcing Children into Permanent Treatments without Evidence

The recent publication of The Cass Review has caused a stir among gender extremists.

In 2020, the National Health Service of Britain commissioned Dr. Hilary Cass, a consultant pediatrician, to investigate the care provided to children questioning their gender.

After a comprehensive three-year study, her report has revealed significant findings.

One crucial aspect highlighted in the report is the safeguarding risks associated with gender transition in children, risks that are exacerbated by gender clinicians’ refusal to follow best safeguarding practices or collect outcome data.

Additionally, the report challenges the widely-held belief that a child’s asserted gender identity cannot be questioned and only needs to be affirmed.

The evidence presented in the report demonstrates the weak foundation for this approach.

More shockingly, Cass revealed that her efforts to establish a stronger evidence base were hindered by British adult gender services, who collaborated to withhold data during the research period.

This revelation is significant due to the socialized nature of healthcare in the United Kingdom, where treatments often require extensive evidence before they are funded.

Even within a system that demands rigorous scrutiny before funding, gender specialists actively avoided examining the evidence.

Furthermore, it was evident that they did not want others to scrutinize the evidence either.

This behavior is not surprising, as it becomes apparent that the narrative surrounding gender-affirming care lacks substantial evidence when thoroughly evaluated.

Cass is not the first to bring these issues to light.

For instance, the common claim that failure to affirm gender-confused children may lead to suicide is frequently used to manipulate concerned parents into consenting to irreversible medical interventions. However, a recent Finnish study debunked this claim once psychiatric factors were accounted for.

The Cass report reinforces this finding.

Parents can rest assured that there is no evidence suggesting that children will take their lives if their gender preferences are not accommodated.

The increased suicide risk among gender-questioning children is more likely linked to existing mental health issues rather than “invalidated” gender identities.

The report emphasizes that children with mental health challenges should receive appropriate treatment for those issues.

Moreover, when children add gender confusion to a range of other social, familial, and psychiatric problems, clinicians should address all issues holistically.

Cass advocates for a comprehensive evaluation of children’s difficulties, which aligns with common sense.

Additionally, the review supports what many parents already know – children’s identities can be transient, making it inappropriate to rush into irreversible medical treatments based solely on their preferences.

The report also acknowledges that many gender-confused children outgrow their confusion, making it challenging for clinicians to predict which children will do so.

Given the fluidity of children’s identities, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones should not be standard treatments for minors, as emphasized by Cass.

This revelation should provide reassurance to Americans who are concerned about children being expedited into lifelong medical treatments by profit-seeking clinicians.

The report is particularly critical of the self-serving nature of many gender clinicians.

It highlights how the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, an influential organization in setting international treatment standards, lacks rigorous development in its guidelines.

Although Cass presents these issues in professional language, it is clear that a self-serving group manufactured a consensus to suit their interests, disregarding robust evidence and relying on emotional appeals.

Hopefully, this report will put an end to such practices in Britain.

But will it trigger change in North America?

The concept of affirmation is deeply ingrained in some US states, shaping policies in schools, social work, and family courts. For instance, in Montana and Indiana, parents have faced legal challenges for objecting to gender-affirming decisions made for their children.

However, as highlighted in the Cass Review, children with mental health issues form a substantial portion of gender-confused individuals.

Will separating such children from their supportive families and placing them in state custody actually help them? The evidence suggests otherwise.

Moreover, the report elucidates the safeguarding risks inherent in pediatric gender treatments, raising concerns about the creation of fresh dangers instead of aiding children.

Gender transitions can easily lead vulnerable children to disappear, as seen in cases where changes in official documents made it difficult to track at-risk children.

For example, a Virginia teenager was trafficked twice after her school concealed information about her gender transition from her parents, demonstrating the potential dangers of such practices.

In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to support an affirmation-only approach, and gender confusion should not overshadow other underlying issues.

Puberty blockers and hormone therapies should not be readily available to children, and the bureaucratic complexities arising from gender-swapping vulnerable children create environments where predators thrive.

When activists advocate for protecting trans kids, it is imperative to consider protecting gender-confused minors from ideologically-driven medical interventions lacking solid evidence and safeguarding them from potential harm.

Mary Harrington, a contributing editor at UnHerd, and author of “Feminism Against Progress,”