State Violence

by

My speech on the Cass Review and Scotland’s trans healthcare ban (with footnotes!)

This post shares a video and transcript of my speech at the emergency demonstration in George Square, Glasgow, on 18 April 2024, against the decision from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to ban endocrine treatments for trans people aged under 18. The speech was unplanned and made without notes, so I have made some small corrections in the transcript, plus minor amendments for clarity. I have also added references for some key points. Thank you to @transprotestglasgow for the video.

Readers seeking more detailed evidence and academic critiques may find my previous blog post helpful: What’s wrong with the Cass Review?

TRANSCRIPT

Hi, I’m Ruth Pearce.

I’m a Lecturer in Community Development at the University of Glasgow, and I’m a researcher on trans healthcare.

And I was a trans child.

I want to talk about that for a moment. Because I came out to myself circa 2001, when I was 15, when not many people did that. And it was hard for us. And there was trans community, and there was information, but it was very difficult because we felt very, very alone. I was mostly only able to connect with other trans people my age through the internet, through blogs, and they were mostly Americans. The Brits were there; a lot of us connected later as we grew older. But we were so isolated.

A really important thing to remember, in a moment like this where we are seeing a return to the kind of medical policies that were in place when I was a kid: there are so many more of us, and we are so much more powerful than we have ever been.1 Never forget that strength we have together.

One of the things Hilary Cass says in her report is that the meaning of the word “trans” has changed since 2020.2 She says, and there is no evidence for this, that “trans” in 2020 meant something quite rigid and specific, and only now in 2024 it’s become an umbrella term for lots of identities. Tell that to me coming out as a trans teenager in 2001!

So here’s the thing. We’ve always been here, and we are more powerful now, but we are seeing this backlash. That’s been a long time coming and transphobia changes its face over time. One of the things I wanted to do to deal with my loneliness and the experiences I had was that I wanted to become an activist. And when I started doing activism, when I got into meetings with people in government, and with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, they said “there’s no evidence” for the discrimination we faced. So I was like, “fine: let’s see what evidence I can find”.

So I did a PhD in trans healthcare.3 And I found what you often find when you do research; you often find things you don’t expect. So I did find some things I expected to find. About waiting lists and how hard they are. About how hard appointments can be when you’re meeting with sexist and transphobic clinicians who are asking you, as a young person, how you masturbate and who you’re attracted to. But what I didn’t expect was the sheer level of pain from the waiting. And I talk about that in my work. And the anticipation, where we are anticipating all the time. When is it going to happen? When are we going to get to live our lives? And that happens on every level of our lives.

I was also shocked by the level, and detail, and complexity of the ignorance of healthcare practitioners. It ranges: it’s not just that they all hate us, right? It’s that some people are trying to control us, some people want to help but don’t understand how, and some people don’t want to know. There’s different kinds of ignorance.4

So I published my work, and other people have followed. Other people were there before me of course, because “trans” was not new, and trans research wasn’t new either. There is now a lot of published research on what it is like to go through a gender clinic, and what it is like for a young person to go through a gender clinic. There’s people like Cal Horton5 and Natacha Kennedy6 who are writing on this, and Harvey Humphrey7 who works here in Glasgow. There’s a lot of people doing work on this.

We are saying, time and time again, “we need services that meet our needs”. For some people, that is access to puberty blockers, and that is access to hormones. For other people, that is access to counselling, and therapy, and community support. What we call “trans-affirmative” or “gender-affirmative” care is flexibility, meeting a person where they are at, and based on what they want to do with their lives.8 You don’t have to change your body – but you can.

It’s our body, it’s our right: we can do what we want with our own bodies.

This is what is disgusting about the decision by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. They have not addressed the years and years of mistreatment and abuse in their child and adolescent clinic at Sandyford. It is not a great place that we are trying to save. It is a clinic that has repeatedly refused to treat young people, and made people hold on for care. It has helped a handful of people. Dozens of people – only dozens – have accessed treatment in the last few years.9 Now they are proposing to stop doing the very little they are doing to support young trans people.

People who get a referral to a child and adolescent gender clinic are not necessarily seeking access to counselling and therapy, because you can get that elsewhere.10 They are not seeking access to community, because you will find no community at Sandyford. They are most likely seeking access to endocrine treatments: puberty blockers and hormone therapy. And that’s what they are going to stop doing.

Sandyford say they are still accepting new referrals. But what is the point of a gender clinic that does not offer people medical treatment?

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde have based their decision on the final report of the Cass Review. Let’s talk a bit about the Cass Review.

I’m an academic researcher. If the Cass Review was submitted by an undergraduate student, the first thing I would say is: “That’s nearly 400 pages long! No-one’s going to have time to mark that”.11 And you’ll notice that all the people in the media, all the Labour politicians, all the Tory politicians, all the people saying we should immediately implement the findings of the report: none of them read nearly 400 pages in one day. Neither did the journalists at the BBC, the Telegraph, the Times, the Daily Mail, the Observer, the Independent. We expect better! And now the Scottish media: it’s all over the Scotsman, the National, the Herald. None of them have bothered to read the report, or think about it critically.

So here’s a bit of information about the Cass Review. The Cass Review was undertaken by a group of people who, from the very start, excluded trans people from oversight of the project. That was in their terms of reference.12 They didn’t want people who had experienced services having a formal part in the report. They excluded healthcare experts. If you were someone who had worked in a gender clinic you were excluded from being part of that.13 You know, I have lots of disagreements with many people who work in gender clinics, but you would have thought they might get a say.

You can see that ignorance, that intentional ignorance, playing out in the final report of the Cass Review. You can see, if you read the Cass report, that they looked at over 100 studies, most of which show that puberty blockers and hormone therapy can help young trans people. And they just ignored them.14 Intentionally. They say that the majority were not “high quality evidence”.15

What else is not high-quality evidence in healthcare? Paracetamol for back pain.16 There is no high quality evidence for that, in the terms of the Cass Review. Anti-psychotics.17 ADHD medication.18 All these medications that are in regular use. You know what else? Puberty blockers for young people with precocious puberty – if they’re cis.19 That is direct discrimination. 20

The thing is, that’s the Cass Review being serious. Let’s think about when it gets weird.

There’s a graph in there, where they show referrals to a gender clinic (the Gender Identity and Development Service in England) rising year on year, with “an exponential rise in 2014”. But they cut the graph off at 2017. But if you look at 2017-2020 the referral rate flattens off. It’s deliberate removal of evidence.21

We know why this is happening. Experts – medical experts, and experts by experience have been cut out of the Cass Review process. If you are trans, that’s you. You are an expert by experience. You know what it’s like. We have been cut out the process!

And the NHS have done that here in Scotland. There was no consultation on the ban that’s come in.

Who did they consult? We know there are people who are proponents of conversion therapy who were on the Cass Review team.22 That is what they are proposing.

They are proposing conversion therapy. Not just for trans kids, because they want to deal with all gender-questioning and non-conforming kids. This is going to be conversion therapy for queer kids. Little boys who want to wear a dress, they might not be trans, but they deserve to have the space to explore. That is not going to be what happens in clinics where people are referred which are being informed by conversion therapists.23

So consequently you have other weird stuff in the Cass Review. They’re dismissing all the evidence about why puberty blockers and hormones can benefit people within particular contexts, but they’re relying on other evidence for their recommendations. Let me give you one citation. “Thoughts on Things and Stuff, 2023”. That is a citation from the Cass Review: Thoughts on Things and Stuff.24

What is “Thoughts on Things and Stuff”? It’s a right-wing Youtube channel run by anti-trans bigots,25 featuring contributors such as “Gays Against Groomers”.26 This is the level of evidence that is informing NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

And I’ll tell you what else is in the Cass report. They say that little girls are likely biologically inclined to play with dolls. It’s right in there, in the Cass report.27 And little boys are probably biologically inclined to play with trucks. Why is this? It’s not just an anti-trans agenda. It’s an anti-feminist agenda. Its an anti-woman agenda.

Why is this happening? It’s happening because trans people are an easy target.

If you want to stop young people accessing contraception as teenagers, you remove trans people’s right to consent to care as young people. If you want to prevent young people – teenage girls – from having abortions, and you’re failing time and time again in the courts, you instead target puberty blockers, because that way you can set a precedent for preventing people from being able to make decisions as young people. You are undermining the idea that young people might have the capacity to consent to care and make an informed decision about their own bodies.28

So I will end on this. I’m a woman, I’m a trans person, and I think it’s really important we think about allies. I had the parent of a trans child contact me and say, “thank you for being an ally”. I want to think her for being an ally. The thing about allies is, we talk a lot about an “ally” being someone who supports somebody else. But no: allies are people who stand by each other and work together.

That’s why we need a trans feminist movement. A trans feminist movements gives people autonomy over their own bodies, space to make their own decisions, and enables people to stand together when we are all at risk.

So I’ll leave you with a chant I want to hear more of at protests:

“Trans rights, women’s rights: one struggle, one fight”.

FOOTNOTES

  1. My statement here is intended to highlight that more people are out as trans than ever before. Contrary to narratives of “social contagion”, there have always been people with gender diverse or sex nonconforming experiences. What has changed is that there is greater access to information and community, which makes it easier for people to come out. ↩︎
  2. “During the lifetime of the Review, the term trans has moved from being a quite narrow definition to being applied as an umbrella term to a broader spectrum of gender diversity. This clearly has implications for conceptualisations of detransition” (Cass et al., 2024, p.187). This claim is demonstrably false, as “trans” (and before that, “transgender”) has been used as an umbrella term for decades. This is shown in my own previous work as well as writing dating back to at least the 1980s by individuals such as Leslie Feinberg. ↩︎
  3. https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/88285/ ↩︎
  4. For an excellent, more recent and more detailed analysis on this topic in the context of trans youth healthcare, see Magdalena Mikulak’s (2021) article “For whom is ignorance bliss? Ignorance, its functions and transformative potential in trans health“. ↩︎
  5. https://growinguptransgender.com/evidence/ ↩︎
  6. https://www.gold.ac.uk/educational-studies/staff/kennedy-natasha/ ↩︎
  7. https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/staff/harveyhumphrey/ ↩︎
  8. “Our stance, as gender-affirming practitioners, is that children should be helped to live as they are most comfortable. For a gender-nonconforming child, determining what is most comfortable is often a fluid process, and can modify over time. Therefore, in a gender affirmative model, gender identity and expression are enabled to unfold over time, as a child matures, acknowledging and allowing for fluidity and change” (Hidalgo et al., 2013). ↩︎
  9. “Since 2018, around 1.77% of young people who are referred to the gender care services at Sandyford have gone on to be prescribed puberty blockers”: https://www.thenational.scot/news/24262271.many-young-people-scotland-given-puberty-blockers/. ↩︎
  10. Although in practice, trans people are often also turned away from mental health services due to “trans broken arm syndrome“. ↩︎
  11. In my original speech, I inaccurately stated that the report was “500 pages long”. However, my point about requiring time to carefully consider its contents remains. ↩︎
  12. “The original published Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Cass Review’s assurance group explicitly excluded trans expertise, stating that it “deliberately does not contain subject matter experts or people with lived experience of gender services” [Report 1, version 1]. The current (updated) assurance group ToR is worded less clearly, yet still conveys exclusion of those with expertise or lived experience, as such individuals would naturally be expected to have an interest in the outcome of the review” (Horton, 2024: p.7) ↩︎
  13. One former gender clinician was involved in the research process: Tilly Langton, formely of England’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). Langton’s recent activities include promoting conversion therapy materials in training for NHS psychiatrists and lobbying Kemi Badenoch about the UK government’s conversion therapy ban, alongside proponents of conversion practices. ↩︎
  14. Hilary Cass has contested this claim in reporting for the BBC. Her argument is that of the 103 studies analysed for the review, 60% were included in the synthesis of evidence. However, my argument here is specifically that the findings of these papers were broadly ignored in the writing of the report’s recommendations, while less robust material was instead prioritised. As Simon Whitten argues, “The majority of moderate certainty studies were included in the results section but then arbitrarily ignored in the conclusion entirely”. ↩︎
  15. I have removed a statement I made about randomised control trials from the transcript here as my point was unclear and therefore potentially misleading (as can happen when you do an unplanned speech on a complex topic!) Unlike the Cass Review team, I am keen to correct my errors. See the links in the above footnotes above for more detailed information on inclusion/exclusion criteria for the Cass Review. ↩︎
  16. See e.g. https://www.nps.org.au/news/is-paracetamol-effective-for-low-back-pain. ↩︎
  17. The landscape of evidence anti-psychotics is a complex one. There is “high-quality” evidence that anti-psychotic drugs work better than placebos in addressing various conditions, but the evidence for use of multiple drugs, reducing or increasing doses at particular junctures in treatment, or taking one drug rather than another in treating specific conditions is often of a similar (or lower) quality than the evidence for benefits of endocrine interventions assessed by the Cass Review (see e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890856716319992). ↩︎
  18. Specifically in the long-term, see e.g.: https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/adhd/adhd-medications-effective-safe/. ↩︎
  19. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cen.14410 ↩︎
  20. At this point, somebody stuck their hand up in the audience. I responded: “Someone stuck their hand up and might give me a footnote on that! I totally approve of that. I might invite you up later because I like evidence and I’m obsessed with it. [person indicates they were just waving to their friend, crowd laughs] Oh that’s grand! There we go, we haven’t even had a footnote.” Well, here is the footnote. ↩︎
  21. p.24 of the Cass Review final report. The rationale for this within the report is that the figure is adapted from a 2018 paper published in Archives of Sexual Behaviour. However, as Trans Actual observe: “The number of referrals to GIDS is known until 2020/21 […] the last 3 years for which data is available, shows that the number of referrals has recently plateaued. Such data is inconvenient for a narrative that relies on an inexplicable explosion in need[.]” ↩︎
  22. https://transsafety.network/posts/gender-exploratory-nhs-training/ ↩︎
  23. A historical example of treatment that “tries to make the child comfortable with the sex he or she was born with” within a gender clinic context can be found here: https://www.npr.org/2008/05/07/90247842/two-families-grapple-with-sons-gender-preferences. ↩︎
  24. p.70, used to evidence the activities of GIDS’ research team at a WPATH conference. They could have instead cited the conference website. ↩︎
  25. A good summary of the channel can be found in this piece by What The Trans: “When citing a recording from the WPATH 2016 conference, Cass uses a YouTube channel called Thoughts on Things and Stuff. This appears to be the associated channel of a now-defunct blog largely focussed on criticising the Mormon Church. Why this was relevant to Cass is unclear, although titles of recent uploads at the time of the WPATH video include “Dr. Stephen Levine: 13 Untruths Behind Gender Affirmative Therapies for Kids” (Levine is an advisor to Genspect) and “Gays Against Groomers: stop the indoctrination and medicalization of children. 2023 Florida testimony.”, which perhaps provides a clue to how Hilary Cass ended up citing a channel with only 22.4K subscribers. It thus seems that, in addition to being advised by and networked with a variety of prominent anti-trans figures and organisations, Hilary Cass appears to be getting her professional news from homophobic and transphobic YouTube channels.”  ↩︎
  26. Anti-gay campaigners have long attempted to position LGBTIQ+ people as a danger to children. In recent years this tactic has seen a resurgence, through positioning trans and queer campaigners as “groomers”. GLAAD have described Gays Against Groomers as a group who intentionally use “ambiguous messaging about characterizing LGBTQ+ people as pedophiles falsely and maliciously with the absolutely clear intent of driving fear.” ↩︎
  27. pp.100-101 ↩︎
  28. https://transsafety.network/posts/bell-v-tavistock/ ↩︎
by

What’s wrong with the Cass Review? A round-up of commentary and evidence

[last updated 10/05/24]

Wednesday 10 April 2024 saw the long-awaited publication of the final report of the Cass Review. This report was commissioned by NHS England, and provides a review of evidence plus recommendations regarding gender identity services for children and young people.

On publication, the Cass Review’s findings and recommendations were welcomed by the majority of UK media outlets, NHS England, the Editor-in-Chief of medical journal the BMJ, conversion therapy proponents such as SEGM, Sex Matters and Transgender Trend, plus spokespeople for the Conservative and Labour parties, who promised to ensure it will be “fully implemented”.

Conversely, the Review has been extensively criticised by trans community organisations, medical practitioners working in transgender healthcare, and scholars working in the fields of transgender medicine plus feminist and gender studies. They have highlighted issues including overt prejudice, pathologisation, poor and inconsistent use of evidence, non-evidenced claims, and the intentional exclusion of service users and trans healthcare experts from the Review process.

This post provides a round-up of links to existing commentary and evidence regarding problems with the Cass Review, plus quotes pulled from each. I hope it will be useful to support actions opposing the full implementation of the Review’s findings, such as:

  • letters to MPs, Parliamentary candidates, and NHS bodies;
  • voluntary sector and trade union advocacy;
  • protests and demonstrations.

I will seek to keep this post updated with new material.

Responses from healthcare professionals

British Association of Gender Identity Specialists (professional body for GIC clinicians)
Initial BAGIS statement on the Cass Review

“We are aware that this week’s release of the Cass review raises many questions and uncertainties for people accessing or wanting to access gender identity services, as well as for the staff working in those services. We also know that this is likely to be a source of significant distress and worry. On first glance, BAGIS Council are deeply troubled by some of the content of the Cass Review and the potential impact thereof. We will be considering this lengthy document carefully, and in detail, before offering a comprehensive response to its recommendations and before making any relevant observations regarding the process that has underpinned them.”

~

Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa
Cass Review out of step with high-quality care provided in Aotearoa

“The final Cass Review did not include trans or non-binary experts […] in its decision-making, conclusions, or findings. Instead, a number of people involved in the review and the advisory group previously advocated for bans on gender affirming care in the United States, and have promoted non-affirming ‘gender exploratory therapy’, which is considered a conversion practice.”

~

The Australian Professional Association for Trans Health (plus others from Australia)
Cass Review out-of-line with medical consensus and lacks relevance in Australian context

“The Cass review recommendations are at odds with the current evidence base, expert consensus and the majority of clinical guidelines around the world.”

~

Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia
Our interim response to the Cass Report

“TACTT is deeply concerned by the final report of the Cass Review, whose core underlying premise is effectively an eliminationist agenda, dressed up in the language of ‘reasonableness’ […] We urge clinicians to treat the Cass findings with extreme caution and not to assume that they represent best practice or that they have been arrived at after a full and impartial review of clinical data.”

~

CBC News
What Canadian doctors say about new U.K. review questioning puberty blockers for transgender youth

“While experts in the field say more studies should be done, Canadian doctors who spoke to CBC News disagree with the finding that there isn’t enough evidence puberty blockers can help. ‘There actually is a lot of evidence, just not in the form of randomized clinical trials,’ said Dr. Jake Donaldson, a family physician in Calgary who treats transgender patients, including prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy in some cases. ‘That would be kind of like saying for a pregnant woman, since we lacked randomized clinical trials for the care of people in pregnancy, we’re not going to provide care for you.… It’s completely unethical.'”

~

The National
Trans academics warn against ‘politicisation’ of Cass Review in Scotland

“[…] one experienced psychiatrist at a gender identity clinic in England – who did not wish to be identified – told the Sunday National that failure [to include those with lived or professional experience] had concerned many within the field. They said: “The terms of reference stated that the Cass Review ‘deliberately does not contain subject matter, experts or people with lived experience of gender services’ and Dr Cass herself was explicitly selected as a senior clinician ‘with no prior involvement … in this area’. ‘Essentially, ignorance of gender dysphoria medicine was framed as a virtue. I can think of no comparable medical review of a process where those with experience or expertise of that process were summarily dismissed’.”

Responses and publications from academic experts

Dr Cal Horton
The Cass Review: Cis-supremacy in the UK’s approach to healthcare for trans children
(peer-reviewed article for the International Journal of Transgender Health)

“Inductive and deductive reflexive thematic analysis was applied to a collection of Cass Review publications related to trans children’s healthcare published between January 2020 and May 2023 […] Four concerns are presented and explored: (1) prejudice; (2) cisnormative bias; (3) pathologization; and (4) inconsistent standards of evidence. Each of these concerns impacts the Cass Review’s approach to trans children’s healthcare, with negative repercussions for trans children’s healthcare rights and well-being.”

Ten Dangerous Cass Review Recommendations

“Each of the recommendations summarised below is built on a foundation of prejudice, ignorance, cisnormativity and pathologisation of trans lives, running in direct opposition to the evidence base, and running in direct contravention of an NHS duty of care to children’s rights, children’s welfare, healthcare equality and healthcare ethics.”

Social transition, puberty blockers, and the Cass Review [added 08/05/24]

“The Cass Review has shown zero evidence of harms of social transition or puberty blockers. The only harm is this hypothesis that they change the trajectory and outcome, locking children into a trans lifetime. This hypothesis is based on the worst quality evidence I’ve ever seen. This is why trans healthcare researchers are feeling stress and dismay at UK media and politicians cheering on Cass’ evidence-based policy.”

~

Dr Natacha Kennedy
The Cass Review and Trans Exclusionism

“Despite the concern-laden language about “helping” and “supporting” trans children, it is my opinion that what Cass is attempting to establish is an all-enveloping ambient conversion therapy approach to trans children, removing their autonomy, freedom of expression, mental health, helpful support and healthcare. […] If imposed it will, in my view, result in the deaths and deterioration in mental health of many trans children.”

~

Dr Abs S Ashley
The Cass Review’s final report: The implications at the intersection of trans and neurodivergence

“Whilst the report cites adjacent NHS services using 0-25 models to justify a ‘continuity of care’ (224), designating trans persons as ‘vulnerable’ and confining them to child-oriented services indicates that more is at stake. These rhetorics contribute to the shoring up of state surveillance and intervention into the lives of legal adults who want to make choices the state disagrees with.”

~

Dr Chris Noone (and 200 colleagues) [added 26/04/24]
Irish academics say young trans people in Ireland deserve better than the recommendations of the Cass Review

“The Cass Review relies on six systematic reviews of different aspects of healthcare for young people accessing gender identity services. Systematic reviews are a way of compiling information from multiple studies that have looked at the same topic and come to an overall understanding of the results. There are very specific guidelines for how systematic reviews should be done but the Cass Review’s systematic reviews deviated from best practice in systematic review methodology in several ways […]”

~

Dr Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz [added 27/04/24]
Has there been an exponential increase in young people with gender dysphoria?

“One of the main arguments that the Cass review has made is that there has been a dramatic and hard-to-explain increase in the number of children who identify as transgender and attend UK clinics with gender dysphoria seeking help. In a number of places, the review describes this increase as “exponential”, and notes that it appears to have been accelerating in recent years. […] The authors say that this increase is far too big to be caused by social acceptance of trans people, and therefore there must be some form of pernicious influence such as social media, mental health problems, or some other issue causing kids to become trans at increasing rates. […] But if you look at the actual data in the reports that the review is discussing, not only is the increase not exponential, it’s not actually that surprising.”

What the review got right [added 08/05/24]

“I think it’s important to stick to the facts when critiquing a review such as the Cass report. […] I think the review made some serious mistakes in both science and interpretation, but they didn’t simply discard most of the evidence, or sneakily change their methodology to get rid of important research. The real story of the Cass review is much more complex than a single weakness that entirely discredits the work.”

Proving opponents of medical treatment for trans children wrong [added 08/05/24]

“Some of the main arguments AGAINST using hormones and medications for transgender children are contradicted by the Cass review. Barely anyone has noticed, because the review mentions this fact once in a single paragraph, and most of the data is relegated to Appendix 8. […] This should be a key point. A chapter of the review. “Common arguments against giving transgender children medications are wrong”. Instead, it’s a footnote. That raises all sorts of red flags. Why were these key findings shunted to an appendix and largely ignored?”

~

Dr Julia Serano [added 10/05/24]
The Cass Review, WPATH Files, and the Perpetual Debate over Gender-Affirming Care

“[The Cass Review] is just a review. In my previous essay, I cited numerous scientific reviews carried out by experts in the field which all came to a different conclusion than the Cass review: that gender-affirming care is beneficial and gender-disaffirming approaches harmful for trans and gender-diverse youth. If those reviews aren’t “authoritative” enough for you, then how about the American Academy of Pediatrics review, or the Endocrine Society review, or the WPATH Standards of Care, or any of the other health professional organizations who have come to similar conclusions.”

~

Dori Grijseels [added 27/04/24]
Biological and psychosocial evidence in the Cass Review: A critical commentary

“Several issues with the scientific substantiation are highlighted, calling into question the robustness of the evidence the Review bases its claims on, as such, calling into question whether the Review is able to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its recommendations to deviate from the international standard of care for trans children and young people.”

~

Feminist Gender Equality Network
Letter from academics concerned about The Cass Review

“We suggest that the Cass Review contains unsound methodology, unacceptable bias, and unsupported conclusions. As academics and experts in the field, we regard The Cass Review as potentially harmful to trans children.”

~

Trans Learning Partnership
Initial Statement on the Cass Review

“Some of [the] recommendations follow entirely spurious narratives and draw unfounded conclusions. The whole report is positioned in a way which considers continuation of current medication access as harmful, but removal of the current medication access as a neutral or beneficial act, despite no evidence to support this. We are particularly concerned about the content discussing neurodiversity; social transition; and access to medications for children and young people. The report positions the fact that clinicians are unable to predict the future of children and young people’s gender expression as a critical failing of current practice. No service can or should aim to predict the future of children or young people’s lives and the idea that a clinician will know a young person better than they know themselves is in direct contradiction to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The aim for clinicians should be to provide a safe, accessible and supportive service which provides individualised care to all children and young people it encounters.”

Responses from trans community organisations

Trans Safety Network
TSN Statement on Cass Review Final Report

“[…] we believe there to be systemic biases in the ways that the review prioritises speculative and hearsay evidence to advance its own recommendations while using highly stringent evidence standards to exclude empirical and observational data on actual patients. This adds to the concerns we have previously had about Cass excluding trans people from the research oversight board – that Cass was set up from the start to impose a particular perspective without input from the patient cohort affected by the outcome.”

Do no harm? The trouble with Cass’ therapy recommendations

“In the absence of effective treatments for dysphoria outside of transition, ‘alternatives’ rely primarily on impossibilising transition […] any therapeutic paradigm for trans and gender-variant young people must explicitly centre the reality and accessibility of transition and affirm all potential genders/embodiments, and should provide information on what pseudo-therapeutic manifestations of anti-trans rhetoric look like, both in clinical and community settings. Models that do not include this risk endorsing the influence of transphobic hostility on identity formation, for instance, or affirming rhetoric that assigned sex is ‘reality’ when this coheres with a given young person’s identity.”

Did the NHS ever stop funding conversion therapy? [added 08/05/24]

“Whether Hilary Cass wants conversion therapy to be institutionalised on the NHS again is immaterial: her recommendations have made space for it. Therapy is a caring profession, and despite the crueller parts of its history, good work happens under its banner – but so does violence. The NHS must set out a clear and actionable plan to keep conversion therapy out of its services, and investigate instances where it may have been allowed to take place. Anything else is complicity.”

Trans Safety Network statement on NICE evidence reviews on trans affirming care

“In June of 2023 it was disclosed to us by members of the Cass Review team that anti-trans author and commentator Dr Az Hakeem was part of “NHS England’s policy working group which commissioned the NICE evidence reviews undertaken in 2020”. Dr Az Hakeem has long been a partisan opponent of gender affirming medical treatments. While Hakeem disavows conversion therapy or trying to dissuade trans people from medical interventions, on his personal website he directs readers looking for specialist support for gender dysphoria to conversion therapy activist groups, such as Bayswater Support Group, and the anti-trans pseudoscientific lobby group SEGM. Hakeem is also a member of CAN-SG who have from their earliest webinars (link) promoted the idea that trans people should be dissuaded from transition and instead either change their minds, or undergo therapy to live with the discomfort of gender dysphoria without accepting their trans identity — in other words, that trans people should undergo conversion therapy.”

~

Trans Actual
The Cass Review is bad science and should not be taken seriously by policymakers

“The report […] strays far beyond its scope and competence in recommending a review of adult services and in suggesting that young people ought to stay under the care of children and young people’s services until the age of 25. The latter is based on highly questionable understandings of brain development which have been repeatedly debunked as an oversimplification of the constant changes in human neurology over the course of our lives. […] Underpinning this report is the idea that being trans is an undesirable outcome rather than a natural facet of human diversity. This is clear not only from the recommendations but also from the exclusion of trans researchers from the design of the review process and the links individual members of the research team have to anti-trans groups, which the Cass team were warned about.”

~

The Cass Report – A Briefing

“The Report dismisses almost all evidence around existing protocols for treating trans young people, including lived experience, on the spurious grounds it does not meet unobtainable levels of proof. The team do not apply the same rigorous evidential tests to their own proposals. Indeed, if such evidential requirements were imposed consistently and equally across the NHS, it would mean that many routine treatments, including treatments for menopause, palliative care and mental health, would also have to cease.”

~

Gender Identity Research & Education Society
GIRES Statement following the publication of the Cass Report

“Of note, many other paediatric medications that are routinely used in paediatric care, do not and cannot have the level of evidence that Cass and NHS England demand: medicines for ADHD, for example, anti-psychotic medications, and many others have comparable if not lower levels of evidence.”

GIRES Chair Cat Burton:

“I was invited to consult with the Cass review. After three discussions it was obvious that the review had been written before we started. She totally discounted evidence from trans people from the basis of knowledge or lived experience.”

~

Mermaids [added 26/04/24]
Mermaids’ response to The Cass Review – In Depth

“Young people we have spoken to are concerned about what they have read, including the desire to understand “why” young people are trans, and to place what feel like “limits” on gender expression, further pathologising and medicalising their identities. We share these concerns. We are deeply frustrated with the lack of clarity throughout the report, which has enabled wilful misinterpretation and the spread of harmful misinformation. Clear and accessible language is vital, especially when services are operating in a context where there is significant hostility to and misconceptions about trans people, particularly in the media. “

~

Trans Solidarity Alliance
Statement on the Cass Review

“In the world the Cass Review imagines a trans child will be seen quickly but not given the care they need. They will still wait for years if they want to access gender affirming healthcare. While they wait they will be expected to engage with therapy that risks becoming conversion practice. While they wait, they will go through a puberty they may find profoundly distressing. They will be treated for every other condition they have. They will be treated for conditions they develop as a consequence of denial of trans healthcare and living in a transphobic world. But they won’t get the care they need to feel comfortable in their own skin. This is a model of care that works for cis people who are upset by the idea of a trans child existing.”

~

Transgender Action Block
Our statement on the Cass Review

“The NHS has always been a violent, white supremacist, saneist, transphobic system; the Cass Report was never going to change that system, indeed it was designed to expand it. The NHS does not provide trans healthcare: it disciplines and punishes trans people, so we will transition in any way we can – with community-led care, private care, and overseas care. We will smuggle, borrow, share, and steal the medicine we need. We will take direct action to protect each other. We survive. We rebel. Fuck the NHS.”

~

The Dyke Project
Today, we dropped a 30ft banner

“Politicians will continue to create moral panics to distract and divide us from their own failings. The Cass Review, instead of focusing on a lack of funding, long waiting lists and overstretched staff is ultimately calling to restrict trans healthcare. Enough is enough. Trans youth don’t need to be studied, managed or saved. They need the same opportunities and quality of care that their cis friends and family receive.”

Responses from human rights groups

Amnesty International and Liberty
Cass review on gender identity is being ‘weaponised’ by anti-trans groups

“This review is being weaponised by people who revel in spreading disinformation and myths about healthcare for trans young people. It’s concerning that sections of the media and many politicians continue to spread moral panic with no regard for the possible consequences for trans people and their families. The negative rhetoric by the Government about the dangers of so-called gender ideology, healthcare for young trans people, as well as the push against LGBT-inclusive sex and relationship education is harmful and extremely damaging.”

Critical and investigative journalism

Them
Advocates Say a Controversial Report on Healthcare for Trans Kids Is “Fundamentally Flawed”

“International medical organizations and transgender activists are roundly condemning a new U.K. report on gender-affirming care for minors, saying the report ignores years of research to propagate “harmful” misinformation.”

~

Assigned Media
What’s in the Cass Report?

“The Report included many recommendations for treatment of youth presenting at gender clinics in England. Some of these were fairly technical, describing proposed relationships between NHS entities such as regional centers, centralized authorities, and local/tertiary providers. Other recommendations were broader […] The recommendations synthesize a view of medical transition as a bad outcome to be avoided, and a belief that gender dysphoria can be successfully treated non-medically, despite no non-medical interventions being evaluated in any of the series of systematic reviews[.]”

~

Queer AF
Cass Review excluded 98% of gender-affirming hormone studies to reach its conclusion

“This week, when the Cass Review was released, news outlets rushed to cover the story, highlighting the report’s conclusions without taking time to consider whether the report could be flawed. In doing so, it amplified and solidified to the wider public the report’s key conclusions without balancing it against the evidence it excluded to reach them. […] Crucially, despite a four-year process, it still failed to find any smoking gun of widespread regret among trans folks who transition. It instead had to rely on a methodology that allowed it to exclude any data about how gender-affirming care helps trans people.”

~

What The Trans?!
The Cass Review needs to be thrown out entirely. This is why.

“We contend that the Cass Review is not fit for purpose. We suggest that it was not merely knocked off course by a flawed methodology. We believe the Cass Report is a deliberate part of a political project aiming to reduce the availability of trans healthcare, possibly eventually in its entirety. It is imperative that we understand this and act on it.”

Trans Community in Scotland Protests Against NHS and Scottish Government Betrayal

“The trans and questioning children who are at the centre of this conversation are in community with one another, and they understand exactly what is happening to them. While we are focussed on the bigger picture, I was taken by their confidence and eloquence when speaking of their experiences. [A speaker shared] a story about speaking to a trans kid they knew through their work, who, speaking of their many friends who had died of suicide: “Yeah, you know how it is.” And we do. We are used to just how extreme what is currently happening to us in the UK is, and the real effects it has on us. We have been sounding the alarm for years, but we are now feeling the UK’s uniquely slow and bureaucratic oppression start to bite[.]”

~

Yorkshire Bylines
The Cass review: trans care or trans scare?

“Children’s wellbeing is indeed at stake here, but that includes the wellbeing of children who are actually trans. Far from taking the matter out of politics, the review – and Rishi Sunak’s subsequent praise of it – has put it centre-stage. Some readers will remember the climate of homophobia that suffused the run-up to the 1997 general election, when the Conservative Party, desperate as it is now, brought out the “They’re coming for your children” rhetoric in a last-ditch effort to panic people into voting for it. This review – whose final report has been awaited for some time – feels like an attempt at the same thing.”

~

Erin in the Morning
Opinion: England’s Anti-Trans Cass Review Is Politics Disguised As Science

“It is important to note that the Cass Review contains very little new data and evidence. Any statements it makes are based on the same level of evidence that every major medical organization in the United States, along with some of the largest mental health societies in the world and professional associations of transgender health, have determined to support transgender care. If its claims differ from those institutions, it’s because reviewers made choices to view the evidence around transgender care negatively.”

Dr Cass met with DeSantis Pick Over Trans Ban: Her Review Now Targets England Trans Care

“The Cass Review seems to have emulated the Florida Review, which employed a similar method to justify bans on trans care in the state—a process criticized as politically motivated by the Human Rights Campaign. Notably, Hilary Cass met with Patrick Hunter, a member of the anti-trans Catholic Medical Association who played a significant role in the development of the Florida Review and Standards of Care under Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. Patrick Hunter was chosen specifically by the governor, who has exhibited fierce opposition towards LGBTQ+ and especially transgender people, and then immediately got to work on targeting transgender care. The Florida review was purportedly designed and manipulated with the intention of having “care effectively banned” from the outset, as revealed by court documents. The Florida Review was slammed by Yale Researchers as “not a serious scientific analysis, but rather, a document crafted to serve a political agenda,” and much of their full critique is applicable to the Cass Review as well.”

~

Trans Writes
The 32 things The Cass Review recommends and why they are concerning

“The 32 recommendations, informed by the highly conservative evidence base, look to impose further restrictions and control on trans lives — and not just the lives of trans youth with the scope of these recommendations including 25 year olds. Given that we know The Cass Review has been majorly influenced by anti-trans activists with ties to conversion therapy efforts, it’s probably worth looking at some of the recommendations and how they relate back to what transphobes are doing to organise against trans liberation.”

~

The Autonomy
Between Reproductive Past and Trans Future

“The overall recommendation is to force patients to wait through psychological busywork and relevant-sounding delays, implementing a largely-arbitrary set of hoops to jump through with the hopes the patient just gives up. Focus on the patient’s anxiety, focus on their autism, focus on any other issue except their gender and their desire for a sex change[.]”

~

404 Media
Review Used By UK to Limit Gender Affirming Care Uses Images of AI-Generated Kids

“Earlier this month, WIRED noted that generative AI has a track record of representing queer and trans people as a collage of stereotypes. It is not clear why the Cass team used AI-generated images in this report, which, again, has been used as evidence by the NHS to stop providing gender-affirming care to trans kids.”

Social media

Chamber Voice (published by policy institute Curia) [added 24/04/24]
How politically unbiased is Cass?

“Questions have been raised about the neutrality & evidence basis for the controversial #CassReview. The report’s author Hilary Cass has been asked to provide answers why she is meeting with Women’s Declaration in the House of Lords this week.”

Context note: under their old name of Women’s Human Rights Campaign, the organisation Women’s Declaration International have openly called for the “elimination” of trans people. More information on the meeting can be found here.

~

Ethel Weapon
#Cassflaws threads on Bluesky

“§6.18 presents us with the idea that toy choice is influenced by hormones. To accept this report is to accept that estrogen, for example, has a biological effect that causes a preference for play with toy cooking pans over toy trucks. In §6.23 we are directed to the work of Melissa Hines in support of this hypothesis. Hines was one of the two authors of the “vervet monkey” study that claimed to show such toy preferences in monkeys. A study that implies something about estrogen makes monkeys want to play with cooking pans.”

“Here is Cass citing “Thoughts On Things And Stuff”. This is a YouTuber whose channel includes a host of anti-trans video material, including material from notorious anti-trans figures, including ‘”‘Gays Against Groomers’.”

~

TransSafetyNow

“It has been drawn to my attention that [a booklet produced based on research cited by the Cass Review] was funded by SEGM’s William Malone & anti Trans lobby group Transgender Trend.”

~

猫好きな人

“In 2021, Trilby “Tilly” Langton, the sole gender affirming care “expert” involved in the Cass systematic reviews, went to lobby Kemi Badenoch about the conversion therapy ban. With a featured speaker at the 2024 CAN-SG conversion therapy conference.”

~

Simon Whitten
Did the Cass Review disregard the evidence of all but 2 of 103 studies on puberty blockers & hormones to reach it’s conclusions? Yes and no.

“The review found 5 studies of moderate certainty relevant to psychological health. All 5 supported the conclusion that treatment of trans teens with CSH [cross-sex hormones] improved psychological health. There were no findings of worsening psychological health. What conclusions would you draw from this? Our intrepid authors draw no conclusions from this whatsoever, instead declaring the evidence for every outcome for which there was no high certainty study “inconclusive.” Similar is true for other outcomes and for puberty blockers. This is the sense in which the Cass Review absolutely did ignore almost all evidence on the efficacy & safety of PBs [puberty blockers] and CSH. The majority of moderate certainty studies were included in the results section but then arbitrarily ignored in the conclusion entirely.”

Dr Cass Responds

The Kite Trust
Q&A with Dr Hilary Cass

“The Cass Review Report does not conclude that puberty suppressing hormones are an unsafe treatment. The report supports a research study being implemented to allow pre-pubertal children to have a pathway to accessing this treatment in a timely way and with suitable follow up and data collection, to provide the highest quality of evidence for the ongoing use of puberty suppressing hormones as a treatment for gender dysphoria. In the data the Cass Review examined, the most common age that trans young people were being initially prescribed puberty suppressing hormones was 15. Dr. Cass’s view is that this is too late to have the intended benefits of supressing [sic] the effects of puberty and was caused by the previous NHS policy of requiring a trans young person to be on puberty suppressing hormones for a year before accessing gender affirming hormones. The Cass Review Report recommends that a different approach is needed, with puberty suppressing hormones and gender affirming hormones being available to young people at different ages and developmental stages alongside a wider range of gender affirming healthcare based on individual need.”

Some final thoughts: recommendations such as this from the Q&A are not clearly reflected in the content of the report or the later Q&A published on the Cass Review website. In a blog post accompanying that Q&A, Dr Cass complains about “some of the assertions being made on social media, and occasionally on mainstream broadcast media, which misrepresent the report and its findings, whether wilfully or otherwise“.

In my expert opinion, the critiques linked to in this blog post have yet to be properly addressed by the Cass Review team, let alone any of the politicians or healthcare service directors promising the implementation of the Review’s findings.

Regardless of whatever Dr Cass’ intention may or may not have been, the Review process itself intentionally and explicitly excluded any oversight from service users and trans healthcare experts, and involved collaboration with proponents of conversion practices. The final report relies on poor and inconsistent use of evidence, and makes recommendations that put young trans people in danger.

Politicians and journalists want to remove trans people from public life. Fuck that.
by

Politicians and journalists want to remove trans people from public life. Fuck that.

On 4th April 2023 the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) provided advice to the UK Government on “clarifying” the definition of sex in law. Specifically, they recommended the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act 2010 be re-defined as “biological sex”. The proposals have been welcomed by the Labour party as well as the Conservatives.

If adopted, the EHRC’s proposals would strip trans people of numerous legal protections currently afforded by the Equality Act as well as the Gender Recognition Act.

This is made extremely clear by the EHRC. Their own examples include the argument that it is a problem that trans women may be protected from sexism under current law, and (as “legal lesbians”) from homophobia if we have female partners. Most worryingly of all, they have doubled down on previous attacks on our right to access gendered spaces. If implemented, the proposals may result in the trans women being barred by law from women’s toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centres, and book clubs (the latter is a genuine example provided by the EHRC).

I am not going to get into the weeds with these proposals. Others will no doubt provide deep legal analyses. I have already seen “gender critical” commentators claiming that this will have no real effect on our lives in practice. To which I say: fuck you.

I am done with being polite, and reasonable, and rational. These proposals represent a blatant attack not just on our civil rights but also on our rights to exist as human beings in public. In practice, banning trans women from women’s toilets means that many if not most of us simply cannot use public toilets.

Trans women use women’s facilities because we are women. And when I say “trans women are women” I am not merely making some kind of abstract metaphysical claim. I am saying that we are structurally disadvantaged under patriarchy, and experience sexist violence every day from men. That is the material reality. Insisting that trans men use women’s toilets is equally stupid, especially if your supposed aim as a “gender critical” campaigner is to produce a space free of beards and penises.

But here I am disappearing once again into details. None of this is about details. It’s about terrorising trans people, and we are terrified.

It’s about making our lives impossible. Ideally, we will disappear; our oppressors don’t really care if we suffer or we die. And we know, trans people know, that people around us are suffering and dying because we are actually a part of that community. I’ve spent the past 13 years producing research that formally documents the oppression we face, because when we simply say what we know is true because we are living that truth every day, nobody in power gives a shit.

In the meantime, people in suits believe there are votes and clicks and money to be won through fighting culture wars, through distracting people from rising poverty and slow-burning climate collapse.

If you are cis, it is up to you, the reader, to do something about this. Over the past five years trans people have been systematically harassed and silenced by a hostile media. We have been pushed out of political parties and campaign groups. Supposed human rights protectors such as the EHRC have been institutionally captured by the far right. Academics happily write abstract theory about what a terrible danger we pose. Fascist groups are rallying against us in the streets, trans healthcare is under attack, and trans children are being told they must be outed to their parents, all with the support of Labour and Tory politicians as well as popular children’s authors.

Obviously we will fight for our own liberation. We have always fought. We are so beautiful and so powerful, especially here and especially now.

But we need you to fight with us.

Here are some things you can do. Write to your MP, and then do it again. Make sure they are sick of hearing from you and then keep going. Go to a protest. Engage in direct action. Maybe sign a petition if you’re into that kind of thing. If you are in a political party, fight like hell to ensure that party is actually on our side. Join a union and fight for us there. Join a human rights group. Join a small trans organisation and offer whatever you can, whether that’s volunteer time, small donations, or signal-boosting.

Think about how you or your organisation might productively break the law to help people. If the EHRC’s proposals actually make it through Parliament, we must make them unworkable. Section 28 was only successful because teachers, administrators, and local authorities collaborated with an openly homophobic government. That doesn’t have to be the case again.

If you need evidence to back you up, it is all over this website. Don’t ask me for advice – I am tired and burned out and have already done the work. Read TERF Wars, read my evidence to Parliament, read the report I wrote with Katharine Jenkins with a feminist perspective on sex, gender, and the Gender Recognition Act.

Finally, it’s important to note this is just the tip of the iceberg. Attacking trans people and defining women by “biological sex” are a part of a wider attempt to remove women’s reproductive rights. Our government is shredding the refugee convention and putting asylum seekers in camps. Our legal rights to protest and strike have been massively curtailed.

If you’ve ever wondered “what would I have done in the face of rising fascism?” then wonder no longer.

Your moment is here. The question is how you act.

–

edit 9/4/23 – read more here:

A pocket guide to escalation (Beth Gale)

Gender: the EHRC explain (jane fae)

The EHRC wants to redefine sex. Here’s what it means for trans people (Open Democracy)

by

Black Lives Matter

I want to express my unconditional solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters in the US, UK, and beyond.

Over the last week I have watched the unfolding events in the United States with growing horror. I have been dismayed by the murder of George Floyd by police, the brutal, violent, but all-too predictable response to protesters from US authorities, and subsequent murders of further Black men including Tony McDade, James Scurlock and David McAttee.

I have so much respect for those who have taken to the streets again and again to call for a change to the corrupt, racist systems that made this violence possible. In this post, I want to take advantage of my platform to share pre-existing information and resources.

As a white woman living in the UK, I am aware that such deep systemic racism is hardly limited to the US. We know that Black and Asian people are more likely to die of coronavirus. This is due to pre-existing social and economic inequalities that result from racism, which mean that many racial minorities are more likely to have pre-existing health conditions, and work in low-income jobs which put them at risk. We know that 1,741 people in the UK have died in police custody or following contact with the police since 1990, and no police officers have been convicted; we know that Black people and other people of colour are disproportionately represented among these deaths. We also know that Black people are even more likely to be imprisoned in the UK than the US, and this disproportionate prison population is a consequence of overt discrimination in both the criminal justice system and wider society.

These problems do not result from the actions of “bad apples”. They are systemic, the consequence of a system of white supremacy on which the wealth of the UK was built, and from which those of us who are white continue to benefit, regardless of what other challenges we face in our lives. To bring about change, we – those of us who are racialised as white in a system of white supremacy – need to think seriously about what we can do in our everyday lives to address our own complicitly, support our Black neighbours, and bring this system down.

I am writing this post because I know this blog has a readership; however, I hope to primarily direct your attention elsewhere. I am not the person whose work you should be reading to learn more about this, nor to think through the actions you might take. I recommend turning to the existing work of Black writers to understand what is going on, and to support Black activists in the US, UK, and beyond. The remainder of this post includes a (non-exhaustive!) series of links that might help fellow non-Black readers especially with this, especially if you are not currently able to take to the streets. But please also do your own research.

Educate yourself. A list of readings, videos, and podcasts on a range of topics including racism, protest, allyship, and prison abolition.

Donate to bail funds. In the US, suspects who can afford bail may be released from custody prior to a trial. In practice, this disproportionately impacts low-income communities, and hence disproportionately impacts Black people. Protesters and innocent bystanders alike have been subject to mass arrests in the last week alone.

Donate to other causes in the US. These include funds for victims, Black-owned businesses impacted by the protests, and related organisations and initiatives.

Donate to Black Lives Matter UK.

Support QTIPOC and BAME LGBTIQ+ groups in the UK. Follow, listen, learn, and donate.

Support people subject to harassment on the streets. Take action when you witness racist acts.

Challenge racist systems in your workplace. Think about how you might work through a union and/or work collectively with your colleagues to address racist hierarchies, taking into account factors such as management structures, hiring practices, insecure contracts, and the operation of class.

Challenge everyday racism among your friends and family. Make time and space for difficult conversations. Create space for others to question and challenge your pre-existing prejudices in turn.

Finally, I encourage fellow white people to think critically about where they are putting their support. Is your local UK “Black Lives Matter” protest actually being organised by white people and centring white voices? Is it associated with a group like the SWP front Stand Up To Racism, who have been criticised by Black feminists for their deep complicity in rape culture? Are you putting more energy into discussing what does and does not constitute “violence”, or condemning people for taking the streets during a pandemic, than you are into condemning and acting against the racist sickness that is the cause of the protests? Are you spending more time thinking about your own white guilt than how you might make productive changes in your life and in the lives of people around you?

Again, I urge you to educate yourself, and read what Black writers and activists have to say about these issues. I will be striving to do the same.

by

Statement on Equality Minister’s comments

This statement, which I helped to draft, is cross-posted from Spectra.

~

As providers of health and wellbeing services for vulnerable people, we are dismayed by Women and Equality Minister Liz Truss’ poorly-informed comments on transgender issues.

Nobody’s fundamental rights should be subject to ‘checks and balances’, as the Minister suggests. Single-sex spaces are already protected under the Equality Act; trans and non-binary people deserve the same access to relevant services and provisions as everyone else.

Trans and non-binary people face discrimination and exclusion in all areas of life. They are disproportionately likely to experience sexual violence and domestic abuse, plus encounter severe difficulties in accessing healthcare, housing, education, jobs, and benefits. This is especially the case for trans women and girls, plus trans and non-binary people of colour.

Trans and non-binary people of all ages require support in accessing services, and making informed decisions about their own lives and bodies. The Minister’s statement that young people need to be ‘protected’ from making ‘irreversible’ decisions appears to contradict existing legal precedents.

These include the principle of Gillick competence, and the Fraser guidelines, which together protect the rights of minors to make their own decisions around medical treatment, if they can demonstrate appropriate capacity to consent.

Any move to undermine these principles will have deeply concerning implications for all minors. In particular, young people’s confidential access to contraception, sexual health services, abortion services, counselling and therapy will be at risk. Rather than positioning trans and non-binary people as a problem, the Minister, along with the Women and Equalities Committee, should focus on ensuring that the Government delivers on the recommendations of the 2015 Transgender Equality Inquiry.

These include the expansion of healthcare provision, and reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to ensure full legal recognition for trans and non-binary people of all genders, on the basis of self-determination.

~

A brief personal addition. Our communities and activist networks are stronger, louder, and more visible than ever. We will stand resolute against any attempt to roll back the legal rights of trans people and/or young people. If the Minister follows through on her threats, she will find she has severely underestimated us. We will fight and we will win.

 

by

Royal wedding arrests: Judicial Review update

The Pageantry & Precrime site has been updated with details of Judicial Reviews awarded to a number of people arrested during last year’s royal wedding. A four-day hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice encompassed four separate reviews:

  • one Judicial Review into the pre-emptive arrests  for ‘breach of the peace’ on the day of the royal wedding
  • one Judicial Review into the pre-emptive arrest of a minor for ‘criminal damage’ the police believed he would cause (evidence: two pens)
  • one Judicial Review into the raid on the Grow Heathrow squat the day before the royal wedding – for which a supposed link to republican extremism was the excuse
  • one Judicial Review into another raid on a squat in Camberwell for which – again – a supposed link to left wing extremism was the excuse given.

The first two reviews addressed the arrest of “zombie flashmob” members, including Queer Resistance activists. Two trans attendees alleged that they were sexually assaulted by police officers following their arrest.

The hearing aims to address broad police tactics and behaviour rather than individual acts of intimidation or violence. As such, the relevant Judicial Review will not (for instance) lead to any action against the officers accused of committing sexual assault. However, I have been informed that one of the trans arrestees is pursuing a separate legal case against the officer(s) concerned.

Judgement on the case has been deferred until July. A claimant explained that: “judgement is deferred because between 20-odd claimants over four JRs the evidence and other submitted papers amount to several thousand pages that the judges must read.”

A full account of the hearing can be found at the following links:

Day 1:
May Karon Monaghan QC, representing individuals who were pre-emptively arrested, set out her arguments

Day 2:
Barristers representing the plaintiffs provided evidence for each Judicial Review.

Day 3:
Final evidence for the fourth Judicial Review. Response to all evidence from barrister representing the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

Day 4:
Further evidence from police barrister Sam Grodzinski. Concluding remarks from claimants’ barristers in response to police evidence.

“The hearing has encompassed everything from the absurd to the Orwellian,” said Hannah Eiseman-Renyard, one of the claimants who was arrested for zombie fancy dress. “In the past four days the court has seen the police use an article from the Sunas evidence and heard how a raid on a squat ostensibly for stolen goods saw the police take all the toothbrushes for DNA.”

“The Met argues that every breach of the peace arrest was done for our own good before we provoked an inevitable violent reaction from royalists. Personally, I wasn’t even protesting anything. I went along for the zombie flashmob and I wound up in a police cell. It would be laughable if it weren’t so scary.”

Sam Grodzinski, the police’s barrister, said less intrusive policing, such as confiscating the flyer from one claimant wasn’t an option as “handing it over would not cleanse her of those intentions”. In the case of a minor arrested pre-emptively for ‘criminal damage’ because of two marker pens in his backpack, Mr Grodzkinski said confiscating the pens was not an option as “he could have bought more.”

by

Judicial review for zombie flashmob arrestees

Just under a year ago I wrote a report for Lesbilicious on the alleged sexual assault of two trans people following their arrest. They were apparently detained for the crime of carrying facepaint and flyers within just over a kilometre of the Royal Wedding.

It has been announced that the pair – along with others who were arrested on the day ahead of a planned “zombie flashmob” in Soho Square – are now pursuing legal action. They are seeking to bring sexual assault charges against the officers involved, and have also been awarded a judicial review.

From the Pageantry and Precrime web page:

Private or Civil Law claims would have likely resulted in an offer of compensation money before the case ever got to a judgement, but the claimants wanted a proper investigation and a judgement at the end of it to set a precedent for future policing. The claimants want to make sure that what happened to them cannot happen again.

Those involved hope to prove that there was (as the evidence seems to indicate) an over-arching policy of pre-emptive arrest that day. It is hoped that the Judicial Review will clarify that the Met’s policing of the royal wedding was illegal and that similar actions cannot be repeated.

It is especially concerning as it is believed in some circles that the royal wedding was used as a ‘dry-run’ for the policing tactics which will be used during the olympics and the jubilee in 2012.

by

Is our government fundamentally opposed to political freedoms?

When the current coalition came to power, we were promised a “liberal” government by David Cameron as well as Nick Clegg. The Liberal Democrats and Tory “left” seemed to be offering an almost classical liberal approach entailing individual autonomy in the realms of public, private and economic life.

This philosophy is being used to defend the privatisation of public services, massive public sector cuts and the scrapping of regulations originally designed to protect workers and service users alike. Still, at least this is a government prepared back individual freedoms and roll back the authoritarianism* of the Labour years…right…?

If we look at the recent actions of police forces around the country – and the Metropolitan Police in particular – it appears that our current political climate is at least as authoritarian as it was under Labour. Most of the oppressive “anti-terror” legislation passed by the previous government is still in place in spite of Lib Dem promises, and the police are shamelessly using it to crack down upon political dissent.

Most recently, the Met issued a pamphlet that called upon individuals and businesses to “report” anyone who happens to subscribe to a particular political ideology.

“Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local police.”

The justification for this?

“Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.”

Well, yes…but that doesn’t mean that every anarchist is about to run around breaking the law nilly-willy. In fact, this is probably a good moment to come out as an anarchist sympathiser. I feel that anarchism – whilst imperfect – offers some great ideas about freedom, equality and consensual decision-making. I have good anarchist friends, who sometimes hang around with other anarchists and talk about anarchism. If I lived in London, would you report me? I’m pretty dangerous after all. I write about my political beliefs on the internet, and occasionally I turn up at street protests and wave a placard around.

Whilst we’re on the subject of street protests, it’s worth noting that this is the same police force that “pre-emptively” arrested individuals on suspicion of potential street theatre, allegedly enabled the sexual assault of two trans people and may have worked with Facebook to remove over 50 “extremist” pages (most of which belonged to anti-cuts groups, UK Uncut chapters and small socialist parties)…all on the day of the Royal Wedding.

You may also recall that the Met deliberately misled protesters involved in the peaceful occupation of Fortnum & Mason during mass demonstrations on 26 March, and appears to be working with the Crown Prosecution Service to crack down upon non-violent direct action. Meanwhile, children and adults alike were unnecessarily kettled for hours in the freezing cold during last year’s student protests.

These are, of course, the actions of one police force, and it can be politically difficult for MPs to criticise police practice. You do have to wonder why our supposedly “liberal” government appears to have nothing to say about the gradual erosion of personal freedoms however, particularly as a number of Labour MPs and and parliament’s one Green MP have been quite willing to condemn police malpractice.

My response to this situation would be that the government is primarily interested in defending personal liberty for the wealthy and powerful. This is why members of the Conservative party are pushing for the removal of the 50p tax rate at a time of supposed austerity. It’s why the government is holding a consultation on squatting that pre-supposes squatters are necessarily a “problem” even as thousands of homes lie empty in spite of growing homelessness. It’s also the reason why NewsCorp and News International executives were frequently wined and dined prior to the recent explosion of media interest in the phone-hacking case(s).

Of course, we can as always work to reclaim our freedoms. Write a letter to your MP, sign (or even better, launch) a petition, take part in demonstrations, join a group involved in non-violent direct action against state oppression; do whatever you think works for you.

And failing that, you could always report ANY information relating to anarchism to the police.

EDIT: the “anti-terror” pamphlets were apparently issued by the Met under the auspices of Project Griffin. Why not see if your friendly local force is also a participant? If so, you could always give them a call and ask for their position on anarchism.

 

*with Labour we are, of course, talking about the party that ended the freedom to protest within Westminster, enabled the “extraordinary rendition” and torture of suspected terrorists, backed police crackdowns on activism, attempted to institute a national DNA database and compulsory ID cards and firmly established the UK as the site of one-fifth of the world’s CCTV cameras…

by

(Guest Post) Our unjust arrests on the royal wedding day

The following was written by fanoffury, who was arrested during the royal wedding on Friday. It is cross-posted with permission from this livejournal entry.


#NOTE#

PLEASE DO NOT TAKE ANY ACTION WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING ME.

So, regarding the conduct of the met police towards me and my trans friend on the 29th of april 2011, this is my account of the events that took place. Starting with arriving in soho.

To begin, me and my friend arrived in london a little before 10am, to attend a zombie flash mob picnic in the park to raise awareness against the cuts taking place in our country, focusing mainly on the cuts to the NHS, Education and our other public services, organised by Queer Resistance. This was an entirely peaceful protest that was really truly just a bunch of awesome peaceful people sitting around in Soho sq London having tea and dressing as zombies, shame I never got to attend.

At 10am we were in Soho sq looking for the group, seeing none of them around and a few people in bandana’s and hoodies playing up for the camera, we smelled trouble and decided to go elsewhere and try to find everyone else. I know I stick out like a sore thumb and am every coppers wet dream of an easy looking arrest on such a day as the royal wedding.

At around 10.30am we made our way out of the of the sq smelling trouble coming and not wanting any, as we walked out onto one of the a joining roads out of the area heading south we pulled our bandanas up as some paparazzi took our pictures, neither of us wanted our pictures used as part of some media stunt. As we moved further up the road we pulled our bandanas down as to not be concealing our faces, as we knew this would single us out, fat luck really because we had already been spotted by a group of 6 police officers, consisting of five male and 1 female officer who then proceeded to pull us over and use Section 60 to stop and search us.

We were perfectly compliant and didn’t kick up any kind of fuss, in fact were friendly and courteous to them, they searched through our belongings finding between us some zombie makeup, fake blood and a flyer for the zombie flash mob.

But this is not all, when searching my person the female police officer said to me “Okay, I’m going to feel under your bra now” To which I replied “That’s not a bra” At this point her hands were still on my chest “What is it then?!”  ”A binder”  ”Whats a binder?” (At this point, may I point out her hands were STILL on my chest) To this I said “I’m Transgendered”

In this time she was feeling my chest way more than she needed to, this entire conversation took place while her hands were going over and around my chest while she held the same quizzical curious expression on her face, whilst she stared at my chest. I can say I was more than uncomfortable. She then after doing this, and being told I was Transgendered continued to misgender me, as did the rest of the police present. I tried to put their numbers in my phone but they told me to put it away or it would be confiscated and then they took it anyway when they put us in the van.

May I mention at this point, that I am a fully trained security guard? So I know how to do a pat down, that was not a pat down that was a grope and a violation of my privacy, and may I add that when searching a female bodied person you are not allowed to touch their chest, at all with an exception of a running of the backs of the hands down the front, once and nothing more unless you feel something and then you have to ask them to remove it.

She then went to check my waist and lifted my t-shirt a few inches to get a look at my binder, like I wouldn’t notice/it didn’t matter as I would most likely never say anything about it.

They went to talk to their commanding officers to run our details, make sure we had nothing outstanding and then we should be free to go, right?

Wrong, the police officer came back to inform us that we would be being taken to the police station, because if he let us go we would “Disrupt Will and Kate’s big day” and that they needed to get us off the streets, that we would be arrested and charged with a breach of the peace.

“For what?! Possession of a leaflet?!” Me and my friend exclaimed. Their only reply being we can’t take any chances and that the decision had been made and that there was no arguing with them, the officer who told us this did so very aggressively and with a lot of anger considering we had done nothing that was against any law.

May I add that I’m pretty sure he was the same officer talking to the protesters in the sq, see video = “Royalists would be offended: You’ll be arrested” Cannot be 100% sure until I have has a chance to ask my friend if it was the same man, I will get back to you all on that.

Chances of what, us dressing up as zombies, over a kilometer away from the wedding ceremony? Really, is this what this country has come to?

I am entirely convinced that the reason we got arrested was because of the fact that we were both trans and both punks, they weren’t stopping other people for more than a minute or so, one of which who they didn’t even stop, was a man who looked far more suspicious then us, how come we were stopped and he was allowed to walk on by?

We were then left standing on the pavement waiting for arresting officers to come and take us in the van to the police station for well over 20mins, them then getting bored with watching us, stuck us in the back of the police van, where they left us for a further half hour or so before someone came to collect us to take us to arrest us, I said jokingly “Whats the hold up, I can’t wait to sample the famous police hospitality! I truly can not wait to get to my lovely comfortable cell!!”

During all of this I was not once called a male pronoun even though I had told them my gender status, and among the misgendering one of the officers kept calling my friend a “Lad”.

Eventually we went off to the police station, merrily singing “I fought the law and the law won”

When we arrived at the police station we were processed like anyone else I assume, I have never been arrested before, although our arresting officers did not read us our rights.

The “Evidence” Which consisted of a leaflet and a bottle of fake blood was confiscated, they were both put under my name even though one item had been found on each of us, I didn’t see the point in mentioning it to them, after all it’s not my job to do theirs.

I was patted down, luckily this woman did not take any interest in my binder, or even go near my chest for that matter, now as I am not sure if it was the same officer or not as we were now separated, but the female officer who searched my friend cupped her crotch, not just once but three times, as she told me later that day.

I’m pretty sure it was the same officer but I can’t be 100% sure. My crotch remained completely untouched, which seems odd to me considering if there was a possibility of either of us concealing something it would have been me as I was packing and had very baggy trousers on, she on the other hand was wearing tight trousers with a rip up the leg, it would have been incredibly easy to see if she has anything concealed, so I can only assume it was to “Make sure” I will not be saying her identity as she wishes to remain unnamed.

We were then told we were going to be held until the royal wedding was over, so that we couldn’t “Cause trouble” Even though the officers before had told us we were going to be arrested and charged with a breach of the peace, which I can only assume was an in an attempt to intimidate us.

After this our photos were taken, and we were placed in cells, my cell stank of urine and was rather revolting. Whilst in my cell I had to use the toilet which is clearly visible through the camera which made me very uncomfortable as it was, what made it worse was a male police officer looking in at me as I was using said toilet…

After a good 2 1/2, 3 hours of staring at the crime stoppers number on the ceiling, I was getting incredibly frustrated and I knocked on the door to ask them when I and my friend could leave, and he came back to tell me the royal wedding was over and that we would be able to leave… Yea thanks for telling us!

Some people may wonder why I did not disclose the information about the police officers conduct towards me yesterday in the interview with Ruth Pearce, the writer of Lesbilicious when I spoke with her yesterday.

It was quite simply because I wanted to think carefully as it would be putting myself out there as trans, this was something I had to think through. This and the fact that I wasn’t sure if I wanted to take action for the trans stuff aswel as the false arrest. I am not yet sure what my action should be as I am currently seeking advice from various organisations and people, I will be updating here what happens with this.

I’d also like to extend my solidarity to all who were there and all who got arrested.

And thank you to Ruth Pearce and everyone else who has been so helpful and understanding, you people are amazing :)

Feel free to contact me regarding anything to do with my arrest and the protest.

Logan.