According to Cass, some young patients who have been referred to gender identity services are frequently dealing with a wide range of issues, including stress, neglect, and abuse. She also makes note of the fact that there is no “good proof” available regarding the long-term effects of the remedies given to children. In particular, she slams the international guidelines for transitioning, developed by the World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare (WPATH), criticizing them for their lack of ‘developmental rigor’.
The Cass Review was established to “provide high standards of care to children and young people who are reevaluating their gender identification or experiencing sex anxiety and need help from the NHS.” Cass, a former head of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, was essentially asked to stay upright in a shark-infested septic tank when she accepted this process. There’s much doubting her courage.
However, the Cass Review is not a rehash of transgender ideology, even though it supports those who have voiced concerns about the danger switching poses to babies. For instance, it acknowledges that it’s possible for children to have an innate sense of gender identity that isn’t compatible with their biological sex. Cass frequently refers to “transgender males” and “transgender women” in the language of the transgender lobby.
She also makes an appeal to fancy terms like “lived experience” and “minority stress,” and she discusses the potential biological underpinnings of transgenderism, despite the fact that it is becoming increasingly evident that it is a form of social contagion.
She also criticizes both sides for being intense and makes reference to the “contamination” of the transgender discussion. This is a little annoying. It was only one side – especially, the transgender activists – who pushed kids ahead for experimental treatments. On the other hand, grassroots parents groups and whistleblowing doctors have only ever pressed for ‘gender medicine’ to adhere to the exact evidentiary standards as every other industry.
But in many ways these are mere quarrels. The Cass Review is a necessary and long-overdue rehash of the issue of “transgender children.”
Transgender Trend’s leader, Stephanie Davies-Arai, has been raising awareness about the increase in children and young people identifying as transgender for a century. She says she is relieved that the Cass Review has made thorough, sensible recommendations to bring the NHS England service in line with accepted neonatal guidelines.
Instead of treating them as little adults within a cultural justice movement, the Cass Review places “female confused” children within a framework of youth development and adolescent mental health, as Davies-Arai explains.
Davies-Arai then anticipates that the Cass Review may encourage the depoliticization of child care. Although this won’t be simple, she writes that “we now need full commitment from NHS England to purge gender ideology from the NHS and return to the evidence-based care that Cass’ advocates advocated for.”
What matters today is how the Cass Review’s opinions are implemented. For at least ten years, the NHS has been stifled by the absurdity of transgender activism. There are trans campaigners at every stage of the health service, from personnel networks to Dr. Michael Brady, the regional director for LGBT wellness at NHS England. There is a chance that NHS employees will simply try to ignore the Cass Review in an effort to defame it socially. Or worse, Cass suggests giving education to clinicians who work with gender-confused children to organizations like Stonewall. Maybe that’s why the report’s tone is so muffled: Cass is determined to avoid unavoidable accusations of stigmatization.
The Cass Review may disappoint those who wanted to punish those who have let their children down for far too much. I’d like to list all of those who claimed that dangerous puberty filters were just a “pause” or who told parents that their kids were at risk of death if their cross-sex names were never confirmed in their stock outside the General Medical Council. The adults who permitted vulnerable children to be subjected to experimentation shouldn’t get away with this. I desired Cass to cut through the complicated gender identity myth with a clear, candid sword. But I get the rationale for her decision.
Cass has hardly ever apologized for the few times she has defended her position. Despite this, she has refuted many of the arguments made by the courageous parents, doctors, and politicians who have spent the past ten years warning against the medicalization of gender-confused children. In that most essential reference, the Cass Review represents true progress.
And maybe justice will still be served. There are still many disturbing questions that need to be answered, such as “how and why the treatment of these children and young people came to depart from traditional NHS exercise” and “how medical practice became disconnected from the medical evidence base,” Cass herself observes at the report’s conclusion.
Many in the NHS might find the answers to these questions to be very uneasy to read.
Journalist Jo Bartosch is fighting for female ‘ and women’s rights.
