Latest news with #CassReview
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Health
- Hindustan Times
Why are British doctors so radical?
PICTURE THE British Medical Association (BMA), the main doctors' union, and you may imagine a professional body of tweed-wearers. It is more like a giant version of Extinction Rebellion, albeit ready to block health care, not roads. Its latest strike, a five-day walkout by resident (formerly known as junior) doctors, is to start on July 25th. How did they get so radical? The union has long been a nuisance for governments. Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the National Health Service (NHS), called it a 'small body of politically poisoned people'. Yet strikes by doctors were rare. Until 2023 there had been only three national ones in the NHS's 75-year history. But from 2023 to 2024, that number shot up. A wave of doctors' strikes in England led to the rescheduling of half a million operations and appointments. The strikes were paused only when the government offered a 22% pay rise over two years. Now, the BMA's central demand is to restore doctors' real-terms pay to 2008 levels. By its own preferred measure, retail-price inflation, salaries are down by 21% even after last year's bump. Student debt is another grievance. But advocates insist it's not just about money. Dr Julia Patterson, who leads EveryDoctor, a campaign group, says conditions in the NHS are so grim that 'you wonder why anybody would cling on.' One of those who has, Dr Lois Nunn, describes the toll of long hours and a five-hour round-trip commute between her hospital and young family. With a shortage of specialty training posts, placements are highly competitive. Many of her doctor friends have moved to Australia; those who remain, she says, are 'quite miserable'. The malaise is not uniquely British. In Germany health workers recently went on strike over pay. Fearing increased competition, last year thousands of South Korean doctors downed stethoscopes over the government's push to recruit more medical students. Even in America, doctors are starting to unionise. 'We've lost our voice within the system,' says Dr Matt Hoffman, a doctor organising in Minnesota. Yet only in England has this frustration hardened into radicalism. In recent years self-styled 'unashamed socialists' took over most of the main committees. The logo of Broad Left, a key faction, is a stethoscope shaped like a hammer and sickle. The BMA has become a platform for activists' causes. At its recent annual conference it passed several motions on the war in Gaza, including one to suspend ties with the Israeli Medical Association. The BMA softened its critical stance on the Cass Review, an NHS-commissioned report that questioned the evidence base for youth-gender services, only after more than 1,000 members signed a letter in protest. Not all doctors support the BMA. It's a 'deeply dysfunctional mess', says one who left. Public support has fallen: 34% of Brits support strikes compared with 52% last year. If strikes go ahead, Labour's pledge to cut waiting lists will almost certainly be broken. Coroners have linked previous strikes to at least five patient deaths. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has called the strike action 'completely unjustified'. Yet even before now, the BMA's transformation has already been profound. It is no longer simply a doctors' guild, but a political force. For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in Britain, sign up to Blighty, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.
The National
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Are arms firms or constituents the priority for our MPs?
The UK Government had announced it would be making the Conservative Party's ban on puberty blockers for trans youth a permanent fixture of Labour's 'changed' Britain and I had hoped to discuss it with my elected representative. I suspected the entire thing would be an exercise in frustration but I was at least curious to know just how much of a waste of time it would be. And in that sense, Glasgow South MP Gordon McKee did not disappoint. McKee represents an area of Scotland with one of the largest queer and trans demographics in the nation. As the MP for that area, I hoped McKee would be willing to engage with the worries my community had with his party. READ MORE: UK Government draining aid budget with 'broken' asylum hotels policy, watchdog warns Beyond an automated response confirming that my email had been received, my first message went unanswered. I followed up a month later. Then again another month after that. And once more in March. But then, a sign from on high! Lo, a leaflet came through my letterbox from the man himself. McKee, it seemed, held regular surgeries. And although there was no actual information on when or where they were going to be held, here was an option to speak to him. So I asked to meet my MP to discuss the matter in person, and a few days later I had my first response. I was offered a chance to speak for 15 minutes with two caseworkers over Teams. OK. It was around this point that I finally received a response to my earlier emails – three months after they were sent. After a little brag about Labour's investment in the NHS, McKee got down to business: the Labour Government, I was informed, has to follow the evidence, including the findings of the infamous Cass Review commissioned by the previous Conservative government. It didn't seem to matter that the Cass Review had not, in fact, recommended banning puberty blockers for trans young people, nor that the report has been ripped to shreds through peer review over unsound methodology and more. After months of waiting, months of watching the situation in the UK deteriorate further and further for trans people, I had been sent a carefully prepared statement delivered en masse to all who had raised concerns about Labour's attacks on the LGBTQ+ community – and it was still wrong. So I asked if McKee would be willing to meet a group of trans constituents to discuss their concerns, giving him a chance to listen to and understand the people in his community who were angry or even afraid at the direction Labour were taking under Keir Starmer's failing right-wing leadership. My request was met with further silence. However, I was finally offered a chance to finally speak to McKee – for 15 minutes, with less than 24 hours' notice for the following weekday. I was also asked for details of the group that wanted to meet with McKee. Before I had a chance to provide anything, the offer was rescinded. READ MORE: Labour council takes no action against councillor who grabbed Gaza protester by neck According to a caseworker, McKee was too busy focusing on issues such as homelessness (even though the primary responsibility for homelessness lies with local councils, not MPs). Instead, he would respond to the issues I had raised in my previous emails. I did not receive a response to my previous emails. Nor the next ones I sent. But after more following up, I was offered a solo surgery date four weeks later. It took five months, but I finally had the chance to speak to my MP. It was a complete waste of time. Face to face, I asked repeatedly if McKee would commit to meeting properly with a group of trans constituents to talk about the current dire situation being inflamed by his party – and the answer was no. I was told that if anyone had an issue, they could reach out to Gordon individually (emails to be sent to and he would be able to help on that basis – though the five months of ignored emails and U-turns to organise a 15-minute discussion would really suggest otherwise. Getting a straight answer to any question I asked proved almost as difficult as getting the meeting in the first place. READ MORE: Why is the BBC not talking about Scottish concerns? I was reminded of this exchange last week when I saw McKee pop up on the Sunday National's list of MPs running a cross-party group looking to 'partner' with defence firms, to give them exclusive access to Westminster MPs and policy makers for as little as £1499. It took nearly six months for my MP to meet me, but now I see my error. If only I had been an arms firm with cash to spare, maybe the process could have been expedited somewhat. In the scheme of things, my experience is not the worst by any measure. But it is a story being told the length of the United Kingdom on a daily basis. We are treated with absolute contempt by the British political class, who will cosy up to arms firms while proscribing people who take action against them as terrorists. Politicians will attack your rights, your welfare and your freedom while thumbing their nose at even the suggestion of accountability. I doubt McKee is any worse than his colleagues, but isn't that just the greatest indictment of the political establishment he represents?
The Hill
09-07-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Gender medicine after Skrmetti: A call for accountability at Northwestern
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on pediatric gender medicine, setting a precedent for similar laws nationwide. At universities like ours, U.S. v. Skrmetti was framed as a triumph of far-right extremism at the expense of vulnerable transgender youth. But some of us at Northwestern welcomed the decision — not as anti-trans activists, but as psychology researchers alarmed by the extent to which ideology has overtaken evidence in mental health care. To us, the verdict presents an opportunity to reexamine a clinical dogma that has captured our field. Seizing this moment, however, will require academia to confront its own entrenched orthodoxies—something Northwestern has shown little interest in doing. Over the past decade, gender dysphoria has surged among adolescent girls, coinciding with a shift in the therapist's role. Clinicians are now expected to affirm clients' gender identities rather than explore the underlying issues. In the rush to validate, practitioners often overlook alternative explanations for gender-related distress. Sexual trauma, for instance, can produce bodily alienation, numbness, and disgust — symptoms easily mistaken for dysphoria. Labeling caution as 'transphobia' diverts traumatized girls away from appropriate care and toward the very sort of irreversible interventions the Supreme Court ruled on in Skrmetti. There are clear reasons young women may reject their bodies that have nothing to do with 'gender identity' as defined by activists. Adolescent girls today navigate a pornified culture that commodifies their sexuality and undermines self-worth. In coursework at Northwestern, we were shown a video series defining 'trans' as anyone who deviates from gender expectations for their 'sex assigned at birth.' But when those expectations are shaped by a misogynistic ethos that eroticizes female pain, it's no surprise some girls try to escape womanhood by suppressing puberty or undergoing double mastectomies. The field of mental health has long misread female trauma. Borderline personality disorder, for instance, is disproportionately assigned to women — especially survivors of sexual abuse. Many detransitioners describe a similar pattern. Young women like Prisha Mosley, Chloe Cole, Luka Hein, and Isabelle Ayala have publicly linked their dysphoria to trauma. Simon Amaya Price, a fellow at Do No Harm, told us he hasn't encountered a single detransitioner whose gender distress had not been trauma-related. While anecdotal, his observation reflects a growing number of cases in which clinicians simply bypass trauma treatment and refer patients directly for life-altering gender procedures. These concerns are being taken seriously in other countries. Long before Skrmetti, several European countries had restricted pediatric gender medicine to clinical trials due to poor evidence and high risk. This shift was driven in part by the Cass Review, a sweeping independent investigation that found major flaws in the research base and recommended psychotherapy — not hormones or surgery — as the first-line treatment. The Cass Review poses a serious challenge to U.S. institutions that still champion the gender-affirming model. Many have dismissed the report, but some of the loudest defenders — such as the American Academy of Pediatrics — now face lawsuits from detransitioners. They are therefore conflicted, as acknowledging the Cass Review's findings could expose them to liability. Even the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, whose Standards of Care shape global policy, is now under fire. Whistleblowers and court filings reveal that the organization suppressed unfavorable data, dropped age minimums for gender-related surgeries under political pressure, and endorsed treatments its own members concede are inadequately studied and potentially harmful. Unfortunately, Northwestern continues to uphold the credibility of such compromised stakeholders, presenting the gender-affirming model as settled science. The university constructs an illusion of expert consensus while promoting experimental practices — and its affiliated hospital profits from gender procedures through the Gender Pathways program, raising questions about conflict of interest. If patient safety isn't enough to prompt reflection, Northwestern's responsibilities as a research university should be. Yet in our experience, critical inquiry is actively discouraged. Students have even been barred from citing the Cass Review, which is dismissed by some faculty as 'debunked,' despite its central role in a Supreme Court decision. As scrutiny grows, so does censorship. When we submitted an op-ed to The Daily Northwestern expressing these concerns, it was rejected without explanation. Days later, the paper revised its policy: All submissions would be reviewed using the Trans Journalists Association Style Guide — a document that prohibits terms like 'biological sex,' 'detransitioner,' 'trans-identified,' and 'gender ideology.' These are not fringe terms. They appear in academic journals, medical literature, and public policy. Their ban in student journalism signals the rise of a gender-newspeak that punishes dissent by attempting to render it unspeakable. This betrays the academic integrity Northwestern claims to uphold — a moral hypocrisy akin to reciting a land acknowledgment while counting cards at a tribal casino. Given its institutional investment in gender-affirming care models, it is unlikely the university will self-correct. But the Skrmetti decision changes the landscape. The ruling legitimizes the voices of clinicians, researchers and detransitioners long silenced by intimidation. It may finally embolden others to speak out — to protect young people and to restore intellectual honesty to institutions lost in the fog of our culture wars. Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman are clinical psychology researchers at Northwestern University.
The Journal
05-07-2025
- Politics
- The Journal
Up to 150 Sinn Féin members expected to attend conference on party's gender policy
SINN FÉIN IS holding a key meeting today for its members where they are to help decide on the party's position on gender identity issues. It follows disputes in the party north and south as it has attempted to toe a line on topics like healthcare for transgender youth between the different jurisdictions. This morning's party gathering meeting in Drumcondra will be attended by 150 members from across the island where they will debate the 'issue of gender identity', according to the Sinn Féin press office. Afterwards a report on the meeting will go to the party's ruling Ard Chomhairle for a final decision. A spokesperson told The Journal that the meeting is taking place as a result of a motion to its last Ard Fheis 'asking for a conference on the issue of gender identity to allow members to discuss these issues in order to inform future policy positions'. 'It is an opportunity for members to share their views and to listen to views of others,' the spokesperson added. Advertisement The issue blew up for the party in the aftermath of the UK Supreme Court ruling in April which said that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the UK Equality Act do not include transgender women – senior figures including leader Mary Lou McDonald and health spokesperson David Cullinane weighed in at different points in its aftermath. Weeks later , a number of current and former party members spoke out over a belief that Sinn Féin was set to water down its support for LGBT+ issues, in particular on trans rights. The party's grappling with the issue can be partly traced back to the Cass Review , a key UK report which found that thousands of young people questioning their gender identity had been let down by the National Health Service. The reaction to the Cass report in Ireland has been mixed – it has been welcomed here by some but has been heavily disputed by others . One topic expected to feature in today's discussions by Sinn Féin are that of the role of puberty blockers, a form of hormone treatment. The Cass Review also said there was a lack of evidence on the impacts of puberty blockers. These findings preceded the Stormont executive in Belfast – where Sinn Féin holds several key positions – supporting a temporary ban on the medication for transgender youth. Trans advocacy groups have long maintained that puberty blockers are an important part of some people's treatment, with Sinn Féin's support of the ban in the North prompting criticism over the past year. Such groups have also been concerned over the waiting times for transgender and non-binary people seeking specific healthcare, with some pursuing it outside of the official channels, as revealed by The Journal Investigates last May . Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Spectator
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
No, British trans people aren't at risk of ‘genocide'
The Supreme Court judgment on the definition of a woman on 16 April restored a degree of sanity to a world that was in danger of going mad. Even Keir Starmer now knows that a woman is a matter of biology rather than ideology. Can somebody please tell the Americans? Or, more precisely, those progressive types over the pond who like to concern themselves with other people's business. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security is an American non-profit organisation that started out to address concerns about the situation in Iraq in the wake of Isis. The institute claims to connect 'the global grassroots with the tools of genocide prevention', and generally to do a bit of good in the world. How effective their campaigns might be in a world where aggression remains rife is for others to judge. Their latest red flag alert, however, homed in on the United Kingdom and, in particular, the experiences of transgender and intersex people. They saw 'evidence of genocidal intent and actions targeting these communities'. According to them, 'this hostile environment is a subtle, pernicious and clear attempt to eradicate transgender and intersex people from British life.' The hyperbole is so far from my experiences as a trans person that it is ridiculous, and such deluded campaigners from afar should merit no further discussion. What bothers me more are people closer to home who ought to know better. Last week, Victoria McCloud – a former judge, who also happens to be trans – announced: I now see it as my sad duty to make an evidence-based report to Genocide Watch and The Lemkin Institute requesting investigation into the systematic oppression of the trans community of the UK. Perhaps we now know why the Americans suddenly poked their noses in? And that wasn't a one-off. The BBC recently reported McCloud's fear that 'someone's going to get killed' because of the Supreme Court ruling. My view of the situation is rather more mundane. Could it be that some people don't like the judgment and fear being called to account for their actions? It was never right for male transitioners to assume that they could co-opt themselves into the rights of women simply by uttering the magic words 'I identify as a woman'. We now live in a saner – and better – world where everybody knows that other people's rights matter too. McCloud needs to get over it. My fear is the genuinely vulnerable will be put at risk, not from some genocidal mob but from fear itself. As trans people, we are told regularly about that 'systematic oppression'. When there is power in being a victim, claims of persecution can attract benefits and rewards. For over a decade, the trans community has drawn in vulnerable youngsters with promises that can never be delivered. Now I sense that the carnival is moving on: the Cass Review put the brakes on the chemical castration of children; the Supreme Court gave women the confidence to object to people they perceived to be men in their spaces; and Pride has lost its grip on our public institutions – at least in councils run by Reform UK. But while society moves on, some youngsters risk being left to flounder. Some never experienced puberty, others were led to believe that they were the opposite sex at unknown cost to their psychological development. Rather more were told that they had a gender identity that set them apart from mere muggles. Life might be far more complicated for them in the coming years and decades. They need to be helped to focus on the things that really matter – building committed relationships, finding productive employment, and taking up their place in society. It helps nobody to ruminate on the fiction that they are hated for claiming a transgender identity. The reality is that few people even care. The world of their future will have its challenges, but genocidal mobs trying to eradicate trans people from the UK are hardly likely to feature – whatever a former judge might like to believe.
