BMA drops opposition to Cass review into child gender treatment

[Igneococcus]

But they still want to prescribe puberty blockers:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/d4075c16-056a-4a73-bd3a-5fd501534a2e?shareToken=8615f265757fbed10a1605ee94f52f42&ver=article

To find out why in the BMA Dr. Tom Dolphin was the main opponent of Cass I found this by Glinner:

Ideological Capture in the British Medical Association

No idea how to make that visable to Mumsnet, so I'll copy paste the important bit about Dolphin:

It is also worth remembering that the BMA has been campaigning to ban so-called ‘conversion therapy for gender identity’ for quite some time. Dr Tom Dolphin and Dr John Chisholm were featured in a Pink News article campaigning for this in July 2020. They were, respectively, a BMA council member and Chair of the BMA medical ethics committee.
Many may also not realise that in September 2020, the BMA lobbied the government for trans-identified males to be accommodated in female-only hospital wards. It is doubtful that the BMA canvassed all medics signed up to the doctors’ union before deciding to campaign for this on their behalf, of course. Similarly, without allowing the full BMA membership to vote on the issue (rather than only the council), how can the doctors’ union possibly represent their members in their proposed decision to reject the Cass review?

I think it's when you force someone else to join the mathletes.

Not being able to prescribe morphine to people with headaches is also a threat to their autonomy because you know science, safety & do no harm!

Such a pointless weak pint from the BMA. There are rules for a reason in all professions.

It's the English translation of Engels's "sozialer mord". Hardly a new concept.

Let's go have a look to see what the BMA actually says rather than an article:

Puberty blockers: BMA critique vindicates Cass review but questions government “overreach” | The BMJ

The BMA’s review—carried out by an internal “task and finish” group, unnamed because of security concerns—failed to reach a conclusion on whether patients under 18 should have restricted access to puberty blockers. It highlighted a “substantive disagreement” within the specially convened group.

• Why is there a security concern about naming the task and finish group?
• Is that not very odd?

In addition it sounds like there was a right bun-fight going on. If the doctors cannot make up their minds and come to a unified decision surely they should agree to err on the side or science and caution.

I think this is finally a sign that cooler heads and reality based people are gradually taking over from the gender activists and ideologues, and removing the tools of power and control they are trying to use.

The whole 'disavowing' and 'reviewing' of the Cass reports findings (requested by government, led by an independant and experienced paediatric expert, collaborative and thoroughly looking at the data) was absolutely no business of the BMA, as a union who should be representing their profession and members. There is always a place for robust debate and discussion of any medical matter, but there was no clear reason, authority or expertise that suggested the BMA as an organisation was needed to officially mark Cass's homework.

The whole farce was a politically motivated move by activists within the union to muddy the waters and have an excuse to use the authority and voice of the British Medical Association to support their ideologically based position - and from reports on the comittee and so on it seems clear that there were entrenched positions in the group looking for any excuse to continue with non evidence based practice.

The BMAs actions were very unpopular with grassroots members who disagreed with their union spending time on and being weaponised in this manner. I am very glad that those in the group who remembered their training as doctors stuck so firmly to looking at the evidence and not taking part in an exercise to undermine the integrity of the review carried out by Cass.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1t5t2b3/bmadropsoppositiontocassreviewintochild/

Doctors are as prone as anyone else to a poor understanding of the scientific method – hence claiming the 'autonomy' to treat patients based on their 'reckons' rather than being confined to methods already proved to be safe and efficacious.

Of course they are free to believe in gender identity theory, and that includes Dr Cass. But I think that she made an error of judgement in assuming that it is logically possible to design a clinical trial for treating 'trans children' that is ethical, given that the treatment methods have permanent effects, including, potentially, on the parameter used to select subjects (that they think they're trans in the first place).

Longitudinal observational-only studies might have been a better way to find out whether there really is such a thing as a person with a fixed lifelong sex incongruence (and whether eventual adult transition makes them happier or not). But unless and until there's a cast-iron way to distinguish them from everyone else, we shouldn't be medicalising children 'just in case'.

TRAs just don't seem to want to find anything out.

So much for free speech apparently.

That link doesn't work.

The link I gave to the BMJ article

Puberty blockers: BMA critique vindicates Cass review but questions government “overreach” | The BMJ

Article is edited today, adds now:

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said, “The Cass review was robust, backed by clinicians, firmly grounded in evidence, and provides a guide on how to improve gender services. We are working with NHS England to implement its recommendations to ensure everyone gets the high quality care they need.
“The secretary of state has consistently been clear the safety of children and young people must always come first. That is why, following a recommendation from the Commission on Human Medicines, a ban on the sale and supply of puberty suppressing hormones was introduced.”
Footnotes
Editor’s note: We amended this story on 7 May 2026 to add the comment from the Department of Health and Social Care.

It is astonishing it took so long. The BMActivists need a long hard look in the mirror.

That was an actual murder, though. Nothing conceptual about it. Was it minimising, and justifying the murder of people he doesn’t like? That is a dangerous road to go down. For everyone.

My understanding is that puberty blockers have been used ‘off licence’ . And that doctors can prescribe off licence. But that the responsibility then rests with the prescribing physician, not the drug company.

iANAL so happy to be corrected.

i feel sure that more rational people in the BMA will have realised that it would be hard to answer the question ‘ why did you continue to prescribe cross sex hormones and puberty blockers after the publication of the Cass report?’ And that simply chanting the mantras wouldn’t cut it. So while they might want to stay on brand with TRAs it would be hard to do in a court of law and not come out the worse for wear. The ‘over reach’ comment is face saving.

Having watched all this unfold (and start to unravel) for years, it still never fails to astonish me that TRAs and other gender ideologists really do believe that everyone is out to get them. No matter what they say. No matter that they once even maybe agreed with them on more than one point.

I know we joke sometimes about how they all live in their own little worlds in their heads, but it's times like these when I absolutely despair of this young generation actually ever growing up, maturing, and becoming productive members of society. I'm nearly convinced now that not one of them has it in them to look beyond their own wants. They will just go through life hating everyone who says no to them. Perpetual toddlers

They’re clearly feeling the fear so many sex realist campaigners have felt when standing up for their rights. Horrific how speaking the truth comes with such a high price.

Society needs to recognise that too many extreme transactivists are violent and dangerous, happy to use bullying and intimidation to threaten the careers, livelihoods and safety of those speaking up for reality, safety and fundamental democratic rights to free speech. Until the notion of the "sacred caste" who can do no wrong is dismantled, young and older people will continue to believe and suppress their critical thinking, their scientific knowledge and even their boundaries.

@MrsOvertonsWindow - I really struggle to comprehend how bad it’s gotten. I didn’t think about it too much until I did something visible in support of women’s rights and then felt fear about implications. Thankfully it only lasted a day and the shackles are off - but it has real life consequences for many. So even Drs advising a union on medical matters can’t comfortably speak the truth - it’s not advancing rights. It’s suppressing thought & freedom of expression. Chilling.

So the BMA 'did its review' and months later came to the conclusion that everybody knew from the outset was the only one they could possibly reach.

The only way it could have been more nakedly face-saving would have been to say Disavowed the Cass Review? Me?! No! -- that must have been my twin brother. We do look very alike.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1t5t2b3/bma_drops_opposition_to_cass_review_into_child/

The use of the word ‘vindicated’ gives insight into how the BMA views itself in relation to the Cass review, compared to how many other people (including BMA members) see it.

’Vindicated’ suggests that there were a large group of people who had genuine concerns, asked the BMA to double check, and (as a higher authority) it has now concluded those concerns were baseless.

My version of the headline would be ‘BMA admits Cass Review was robust’. Because in my view no one serious had genuine concerns anyway, and the BMA took it upon themselves to do a spurious review which no one asked them to do and which they now conclude was not needed.