A landmark study of gender medicine is caught in an ethics row


AI Summary Hide AI Generated Summary

Key Findings of the Cass Review

The Cass review, a landmark study of gender medicine in Britain, highlighted the remarkably weak scientific evidence supporting the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in teenagers as part of “gender-affirming care.”

Ethical Concerns

The lack of robust scientific backing for these treatments has raised significant ethical concerns, making transgender medicine a highly contentious issue.

Impact and Debate

The review's findings have ignited a debate on the appropriate approach to providing healthcare to transgender youth and underscore the need for stronger evidence-based practices in gender-affirming care.

Sign in to unlock more AI features Sign in with Google

ONE REASON that transgender medicine is such a fraught topic is that there is little evidence behind the arguments. When Hilary Cass, a British paediatrician, reviewed the field for an influential report published in 2024, she noted that most of the science underlying the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to teenagers (an approach called “gender-affirming care”) was “remarkably weak”.

Was this article displayed correctly? Not happy with what you see?

Tabs Reminder: Tabs piling up in your browser? Set a reminder for them, close them and get notified at the right time.

Try our Chrome extension today!


Share this article with your
friends and colleagues.
Earn points from views and
referrals who sign up.
Learn more

Facebook

Save articles to reading lists
and access them on any device


Share this article with your
friends and colleagues.
Earn points from views and
referrals who sign up.
Learn more

Facebook

Save articles to reading lists
and access them on any device