The treatment of children unsure about their gender “is an area of remarkably weak evidence” which sees studies “exaggerated or misrepresented” to support political viewpoints, a highly-anticipated review has claimed.
Paediatrician Dr. Hillary Cass’ report may contain information that campaigners say we all already knew, such as that children who say they are transgender may actually have mental health issues. But it has prompted National Health Service (NHS) bosses to review all the transgender treatment it provides.
Cass noted that “whatever your views on gender identity, there is no denying there are increasing numbers of children and young people seeking support from the NHS for gender-related distress.” She also stressed that “extreme caution” must be taken before ‘transitioning’ anyone under the age of 25.
The review’s calls for child protection are proving influential. The Daily Telegraph reports that “treatment for any new patients aged 16 and 17 seeking to change gender at adult clinics will immediately be paused,” although there are, as yet, no revised guidelines for young adults.
In her review, Dr. Cass wrote:
The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender related distress.
Even The Guardian highlighted that, according to the report, “the UK’s only NHS gender identity development service used puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, which masculinise or feminise people’s appearances, despite ‘remarkably weak evidence’ that they improve the wellbeing of young people and concern they may harm health.”
Campaign group Sex Matters said the review has brought about “the end of paediatric gender medicine as we know it.” But as the arrival of the first private gender treatment centre for children shows, as well as Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s continued commitment to banning trans conversion therapy and Labour’s so far unclear response to the Cass report—many questions surrounding the actions taken towards children who say they are transgender remain unanswered.
With some commentary indicating the potential for a major medical malpractice scandal, more public attention to ‘gender medicine’ should be expected over the coming weeks, prompted by the Cass review .
