August 9, 2024 - 7:00am
Medicine is not immune to fashions and fads. But the British Medical Associationâs (BMA) stubborn belief in the healing powers of puberty blockers is beginning to seem embarrassingly last season. Clinicians are now publicly distancing themselves from the outdated stance of their union, frustrated by the refusal of those at the top to acknowledge that the scientific consensus has moved on.
Last week, in a stunning display of obduracy, the BMA advised medics not to trust the findings of the Cass Review into NHS gender services for children. The inquiry by Cass, one of the worldâs preeminent paediatricians, took four years to complete and the resulting report has been widely acknowledged as rigorous, robust and impartial.
But this was not enough for BMA chair Professor Philip Banfield. He announced the launch of the BMAâs own âtask and finishâ project to evaluate the findings of Cassâs research explaining the purpose of his report would be to âmake recommendations to improve the healthcare system that has, for too long, failed transgender patients.â In the meantime, he suggested that the NHS continue to prescribe puberty blockers, despite the known risks and lack of any evidence of their efficacy. But not all of the BMAâs 195,000 members were in agreement.
Yesterday, an open letter from the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (CAN-SG) addressed to Professor Banfield, warned that the organisation âis going against the principles of evidence-based medicine and against ethical practiceâ by refusing to accept the findings of the Cass Review. Signatories told the BMA chair: âWe write as doctors to say, ânot in my nameâ. We are extremely disappointed that the BMA council has passed a motion to conduct a âcritiqueâ of the Cass review and to lobby to oppose its recommendations.â
It was not the only letter; another from Seen (Sex Equality and Equity Network) in Health urged the BMA to reconsider its stance âto ensure that the best interests of children and young people struggling with gender distress are at the forefront of policy and practice.â
Over the past few days, The Association of Clinical Psychologists UK (ACP-UK) and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges have issued statements welcoming the Cass Review as a comprehensive analysis of the existing evidence. Indeed, earlier this week the NHS announced that it was putting Cassâs recommendations into practice, opening up to six centres to treat children who are confused about their gender in a holistic way. This includes a new clinic for those who have desisted or are detransitioning from their cross-sex or non-binary identities.
Traditionally, unions are supposed to represent their members. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the BMA is dangerously out of step with the medical consensus. The Cass Review has sent ripples across the world, and from lawsuits in the US to a change of tack across Europe â medics are increasingly acknowledging that what is a crisis in youth mental health cannot be cured by changing bodies.
Had a world leading clinician spent four years investigating childhood diseases or treatments for anxiety, the findings would be accepted without controversy. It is because the Cass Review sought scientific evidence for ideologically rooted treatments that her work has been dismissed by transgender activists, including clinicians like Prof Banfield. It seems so-called âgender medicineâ is so mired in identity politics that scrutiny or the application of basic standards is considered a threat.
There can be few things more chilling than a medic on a messianic mission, particularly when one heads an institution as august as the British Medical Association (BMA). The trans trend is finally coming to an end, and if the BMA is to stay relevant, it must move on.
Josephine Bartosch is assistant editor at The Critic and co-author of the forthcoming book Pornocracy.
jo_bartosch
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe BMA also maintained a policy against assisted dying when the majority of its doctors had moved in favour of its potential adoption.
Broken clock right twice a day, etcâŠ
iâm not sure what youâre getting at. Please could you elaborate for me.
Iâm saying that the BMA is right to hold the line against assisted dying despite its members, while at the same time being wrong on the Cass Report.
Thanks for explaining.
Perhaps because you can’t make a profit off a dead patient.
Why would anyone take notice of the politically motivated views of a Trade Union?
A perverted decision by a bunch of overpowered idiots. Who would of thought trade unions were run by dangerous fools?
The corporate opinions of any organisation that employs a ‘Chief People Officer’ should be treated with deep suspicion.
Exactly! We have one where I work, and never has our community been more divided or the environment more toxic. Almost as sure as night turns to day, the kind of ‘officers’ are woke extremists with a dangerous activist agenda.
Excuse the potential pedantry, but… it’s “Who would *have* thought…”
Or “would’ve”.
The use of “of” makes the sentence nonsensical.
Thank you. ‘Would of’ is even worse than ‘bored of’.
Is a partial and evidence-averse individual such as Professor Banfield a fit and proper person to lead a body such as the BMA?
No, is the short answer. The longer answer is ‘No way’.
Testimony and clerical evidence proves it is Cass who was “partial’ and uncaring of evidentiary proof.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQXUWs7GU9FX02LypDp9YltRfmtRVAAn9L9CIdKuuU2kHqz_z2BBttO3nJD4Wsau5EIHuHiapFCOTQ5/pub#ftnt28
Unlike the anonymous, unnumbered cowardly child abusers who object to the BMA critiquing the Cass Report, these people lay it quite on the line.
Your link is to a post by two authors who were both involved in the notorious Tavistock clinic. Regardless of what opinions one might have about Cass’ conclusions, Cass did a great service of drawing our attention to the unbelevably shoddy research done in this area which laid the foundation for appalling institutions like the Tavistock.
No liar, Cass fraudulently and in service of her prior existing bias cherry picked her data for the purpose of claiming falsely that that gender affirming care for youth was not supported by evidence.
The sole fault of Tavistock lay not with it but with the politicians who refused to fund proper medical care there, which is WPATH compliant gender affirming care, so that the wait times were reasonable.
It should take no more than a few weeks for a youth whose symptomology indicates it, to be administered blockers, for example.
Something Cass herself has at times agreed with after the publication of her report.
https://thekitetrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Cass-Review-Mythbusting-Q-and-A.pdf
âNo liar,â
Why is Peter Principle a liar? The Cass review does get positive reviews;
âthe reviews of medication are a valid survey, and rightly emphasise the lack of certainty about both the benefits and harms of medical transition.â
Because he deliberately deceives by overt communicative acts — a liar.
“The Cass review does get positive reviews;” <– So what? That disproves no criticisms of it at all.
And you deliberately ignore something quoted from the report you support.
Funny, I have already demonstrated nothing in the report has any particular justification and is correct only by chance. That is the opposite of ignoring it.
Your syntax is very tangled and difficult to understand so Iâm assuming your a university student. Explain correct âonly by chanceâ.
I write at a level of sophistication above, “See Jane run.”
The meaning of, “only by chance” is perfectly clear. It means she only happened to string several words together in a manner in agreement to reality by chance.
I will not entertain your sophistry further.
Good girl.
It is still waited for, that you engage substantively â with regard to: What are the facts, and what are the opinions which they support or invalidate?
Until you are discussing facts you are not looking at this logically.
But I do thank you for making it quite so clear, that you are only a troll.
No, Cass invented the idea there is only shoddy, insufficient work supporting Tavistock’s work, gender affirming care. That is why it has been rejected by every major medical association on the planet.
It is factual or it is not, that Cass urged people involved beforehand to read Shrier’s propaganda piece. If Cass did, it is prima facie evidence of her lack of impartiality.
The only thing wrong with Tavistock, is that the NHS was too paltry with funds, for Tavistock to work as it should.
It is in fact the case that Cass herself told The Kite Trust that puiberty blockers should be used far more quickly than had been the case.
https://thekitetrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Cass-Review-Mythbusting-Q-and-A.pdf
“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. Cassâs view is that this is too late to have the intended benefits of supressing 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.”
What is appalling is the refusal of the gender critical to acknowledged the black and white facts which refute the legitimacy of their opnions.
Clearly there should be a motion for a vote of no cofidence in Banfield. Either he’s ideologically blinded, or he’s too weak (scared, gutless) to stand up to a lobby group determined to abuse children and destroy their lives. Either way, he’s not a fit and proper person to fulfil the role.
Surely we need more than a motion. How about tarring and feathering?
The really dreadful part of his statement is that by dint of his title as head boy of the BMA his opinion is taken seriously by the transvestite brigade and encourages their atrocities on young bodies and minds. I would not have Banfield in my club. The BMA would best be rid of him.
Except plainly it was Cass who was ideologically blinded.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/colleagues-allege-cass-recommended
… so to sum up: most doctors have more understanding of human genetics and social norms than the BMA HQ staff.
And yet as I demonstrate, there is no reason to doubt that 99% or more of British doctors agree with the BMA leadership.
99%. Suuure, uh, “Talia”. Where’s your tiresome link to your AGP zealot site where they’ve — or maybe it’s just you — made that up?
AGP does not even exist, fool, and you will not find any factual excuse to claim anything untrue of what I have said.
Not anymore now than ever yet.
https://www.bma.org.uk/about-us/about-the-bma/how-we-work/leadership-at-the-bma
The braces tell you everything.
Good grief! This is the head of the BMA?
Rainbow braces for those who donât bother to click through and his Deputy is an out LGBTQ so no bias there! Communications Director a former Labour Party strategist and other officers emphasise diversity credentials so all a bit of an echo chamber.
Opposition to bias is not itself bias.
They say he opposes your preferred abuse of LGBTQ people. And ?
The braces show that he wants you to know heâs a regime activist. Looks like the type who has recipes for succulent mouth-watering pre-teen scr*t*m skins. Schlllppp.
So the people who run the BMA are as dumb and corrupt as they are greedy? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!
The tide is turning.
It wonât actually turn until the GRA is repealed.
Oh no, it’s not. You don’t get to put the “whites only” signs back up either.
All the people I live with happen to be very dark-skinned, (probably the woke would say they’re “black”, to fit their sententious racial categorizing). I doubt any of them would agree with or even understand your weird fanatical assertions.
Other than to point out and mock your delusions of factual and moral adequacy, I have no care for anything say or write about it.
My observation spoils your hackneyed attempt to link disbelief in weird transgender dogma with what you assert to be a shameful stigma of European heritage. Just about nobody anywhere in the global south — i.e. “People of Color” — believes your weird made-up “facts” and “rights”. Why don’t you take a trip to Yemen with your wigs, frock, flag and affected insouciance, and find out just how much you’re accepted by always-so-lgbtq-friendly poc.
You have no relevant observation.
I have the relevant observation your only motivation is base hatred of an innocent biological minority, so the “whites only” allusion is on point.
Clearly not.
I work with physicians in research. I know many. Some are completely skeptical about the trans delusion – they know that biology is real, that men cannot become women.
But so often, for so many, the pretentions that they are imbued with due to the advanced degrees and the certainty that academia promotes leads them to support gender dysphoria as a real thing, not a delusion. I know many many who are like this.
It’s a fundamental test of intelligence in my view. My PhD says “Psychology”. Many whose degrees also have this word are the most deranged about this issue. This was the “science” that brought us the recovered memory terror (which put actual parents in actual jail), the Satanic kindergarten scandal (again people served real jail time based on the testimony of 4 YO children), the multiple personality stupidity, and multiple other scandals. In each case, I have asked supposed professionals and they have answered in great seriousness that the phenomenon is real. This is a bane of psychology as a view of the world – those in this profession are taught to believe any kind of shit that comes from people as being somehow valid.
Most people suspect that anything with the prefix ‘psych’ is quackery – and your colleagues do little to quell this notion. Thank God there are some left like you.
Bit of a worry that only ‘some’ of them know that biology is real surely?
“Some are completely skeptical about the trans delusion â they know that biology is real, that men cannot become women.”
None who express such beliefs as what you claim are even possibly aware of what they are talking about — because it is exactly the idea that a man cannot become a woman or vice versa which gender affirming care is based on.
My experience has demonstrated a salient dichotomy between honestly-motivated psychologists in the clinical trenches fighting to help real people and the airy-fairy academics and “researchers” who conjure notions that they “prove” with studies that fully 50% of the time cannot be replicated and sadly are often downright fraudulent. The latter are never obliged to rethink their foolish theories because they seldom stoop to mingle with real patients. The only people with mental illness they encounter are the other narcissists in the faculty lounge.
The vast majority of jobbing clinicians deplore nonsense, but know they’re painting a target on their backs in the NHS if they express the opinion most people have – and absolutely every sane person held till 5 minutes ago.
Theyâre one thing. Doctors.
Not supposed to be a MARXIST Front. Disgusting to any intelligent people who, YES FOLKS! Donât have to be a Doctor to have a brain âŠ.
As a former NHS Consultant can I reassure fellow Unherders that the BMA attracts the more left-wing doctors and doesnât represent the views of the whole profession. Personally I find them embarrassing. I accept the Cass review recommendations unreservedly.
Why yes, you are exactly the sort of child abuser as I mention in my first comment here…
…and you represent a drastically small troglodytic band of merry child abusers.
Defamatory comment.
And yet perfectly correct in every respect.
Letâs study the amputation of the arms of children who want to be fish-like so that we can decide whether that is a helpful approach
Which like all such dishonest arguments, has nothing at all to do with the matter.
Good to read this.
This Banfield person, and those who supported his motion should be replaced quickly and very publicly.
We are supposed to put our trust in such idiots to look after the well being of us all.
How do these people rise to such a lofty position?
Banfield is obviously a regime apparatchik, and presumably has good face to face political skills as well. Good choice for a captured organisation.
No there is no such revolt. The same as in the US — and in most of the 1st world — all opposition to gender affirming care has no evidentiary basis, the claim gender affirming care has no evidentiary basis is itself baseless — and most opposition to gender affirming care for youth and adults is founded in the emotional ideology of Social Conservatives.
I note two things of relevance, one direct, the other indirect.
I.
This article of propaganda in The UnHerd — who of course are only a herd of social conservatives — dares not mention any names or even a count of signatories to this purported letter.
This claim is asserted, “The letter is understood to have gathered dozens of signatures from leading doctors.” <– Dozens? How elliptical. Which leaders?
How many dozens? How many dozens before they claim ~over thirty~ or ~over one hundred~ ? Let us postulate 1 dozen dozens. How about bakers’ dozens? Why not? Where does such speculation so drastically favorable to the Social Conservative argument land us?
[ (13 x 13) / 195,000 ] * 100 = 0.086, the 6 repeating.
I won’t be paltry, I’ll call the 8 a 9. So 0.09% of British doctors agree with the fraudulent nonsense of the Cass Report enough to object to the BMA giving it due investigational care. Even if tenfold that figure agree with those who are revolting, and fear to speak — even though the gender critical ideology of moral panic has official imprimatur — that is still less than 1%.
This is similar to another group of doctors who are revolting, this time in the US — the ACPeds organization. They are also a group of Social Conservatives who put their political goals above the health and well being of their patients. They amount to at most 0.07% of American medical doctors by like rounding up.
It turns out you just can’t find that many doctors dedicated to abusing children for the sake of their gender ideology.
The gender ideology of Social Conservatives is that, A) gender in fact does not exist physically at all or B) that is always magically identical to the sex of a person. There is no physical evidence supporting their beliefs — it is solely a matter of faith with them. All the physical evidence goes solely against them.
II.
That lawsuit claiming there will be over 1000 people claiming the NHS “transed” them? How is it doing? How many people have signed on? It seems only a handful — where merely if every person medically transitioned in the UK were to sign on who regretted their transition altogether, there should be about 1,500. Where are they? That figure represents the ~<1% of those who transition medically who regret it under the current WPATH standards of care.
Again, where are they?
The fact is that only such monsters who are willing to force 99 boys and girls to respectively grow up with breasts and periods, and, beards and deep voices — for the sake of at most saving 1 from such — endorse what social conservatives claim the Cass Report says.
None who object to what I say will find and cite any facts whatsoever to support them.
Including any staff or contributors to the herd at The UnHerd.
Youâre very keen on facts in your comments but what do you mean by this?;
âmost opposition to gender affirming care for youth and adults is founded in the emotional ideology of Social Conservatives.â
First of all I think the concern is for youth. Generally the feeling is that adults can do what they like with their bodies.
Care to explain your âemotional ideologyâ? Because if itâs not emotional ideology then itâs something else. And what do you mean by âmostâ?
“First of all I think the concern is for youth.” <– No, it is not, or they would have demonstrable care for what is real about that matter, instead of what they wish was real.
It is not my emotional ideology, but their’s. Their emotions make them unable to deal maturely with measured physical reality.
You have to be trolling me. By most, I mean most.
Try reading.
Okay, youâre obviously a pedant. I meant your reference to âemotional ideologyâ, not your emotional ideology. What exactly is that âemotional ideologyâ?
So, you avoid defining âmostâ. Most is subjective, so try for the accuracy you demand from others.
âNo, it is not, or they would have demonstrable care for what is real about that matterâ
Which is?
“Okay, youâre obviously a pedant.” <– No, I’m just not letting you get away with any sophistry.
“What exactly is that âemotional ideologyâ?” <– I’ve already spelled that out, try reading. This may help, “The gender ideology … solely against them.”
“Most is subjective” <– No imbecile, most is at least more than half, isn’t it?
“Which is?” <– The the gender of a person is formed in utero and not changeable after birth, and no, not the same anatomy as the sex either.
Sure, most could be 51%. Does that work for you?
On that basis what does the 49% base their beliefs on if 51% is emotional?
I won’t be entertaining like sophistry further.
âWhat exactly is that âemotional ideologyâ?â <â Iâve already spelled that out, try reading. This may help, âThe gender ideology ⊠solely against them.â
You still havenât explained it. What particular emotion are you referring to that has an ideology for Social Conservatives?
I suspect you use emotion because it suggests something irrational. Is that what you mean?
Disgust, fear, shame, simple bigoted hatred — take your pick. There is no set facts or even a single fact justifying it, so only emotion is left to explain the social conservatives here. Irrationality may be part of it for some, most simply want their views and “tribe” have power over whom they think are lesser.
Okay. Then the problem is youâre unable to accept a different point of view, so you look for something to explain it that satisfies you and youâve come with negative emotions. The problem is not that you disagree with others, itâs that youâre intolerant of anotherâs point of view that differs from yours.
Of course there are those out there emotionally motivated for the reasons you state, but saying most are like that is stretch you canât prove.
But you still havenât explained what those you consider not to be emotionally involved, you know, the less than âmostâ, what their point if view is based on. It canât be emotion, because thatâs for the âmostâ. This is not sophistry. Iâm asking you to look at this logically, not emotionally.
You are trying to make this about me personally, and not what the facts are. It is really only about the facts.
The facts are there are no facts justifying what the gender critical say they want. What they say they want is for 99 boys and girls to be forced to grow up with respectively breasts and periods, and, beards and deep voices. That is the consequence of what they say they want — they either want that, or, they are ignorant of reality, or, they are evil, or, they are insane, or, some combination of the three.
It does not really matter which. What matters is that facts prove that consequence, and that that consequence is needless and unacceptable.
No Brett, the problem is that at the best you think all points of view are inherently equivalently justified, and never mind the facts behind them. There are no facts justifying the gender critical ideology.
“But you still havenât explained what those you consider not to be emotionally involved, you know, the less than âmostâ, what their point if view is based on. It canât be emotion, because thatâs for the âmostâ. This is not sophistry. Iâm asking you to look at this logically, not emotionally.” <– No sophist, you are not asking me to look at it logically.
“Disgust, fear, shame, simple bigoted hatred”, all of those have been reasons why people do awful things to other people for millennia. So is even simply picking a side and enjoying seeing it take power. It is not logical for you to claim or imply otherwise.
Whatever their motivation, what facts do you pretend justifies the gender critical ideology?
It is still waited for, that you engage substantively — with regard to: What are the facts, and what are the opinions which they support or invalidate?
Until you are discussing facts you are not looking at this logically.
Brett, don’t waste your words and time on Talia Perkins, who is a full-time comments section troll that slings excrement like an angry chimp at the zoo with about the same amount of thoughtfulness.
What those are are facts you can’t handle. A troll does it for the lulz, I care about what is real and about doing everything I can to stop people like you from hurting anyone.
And that is all the “gender critical” ideology is about — you hurting the people you think are for no better.
That is perfectly clear to me and every fair minded person reading, because your sort never has any factual counterargument to make. You only repeat the same lies over and over.
TLDR. Any ordinary person knows what is obvious. It’s only AGP zealots that need to manufacture “facts” to foist their self-serving “rights” over others (the right to be violent to women, legally s*x-offend, groom children, etc). Sadly, the professional-managerial baizuo class, so desperate to seek the social credit of their peers, tend to be pliant to any ideology, so long as it’s powerful.
AGP does not exist Ian, that is why neither you nor Blanchard can find anything supporting it. You can not find any way this involved “rights over others”.
“(the right to be violent to women, legally s*x-offend, groom children, etc).” <– No such thing exists Ian — it is only your make believe that that is what is what this is about.
You and your gender critical ilk have the only ideology here.
The gender ideology of Social Conservatives is that, A) gender in fact does not exist physically at all or B) that is always magically identical to the sex of a person. There is no physical evidence supporting their beliefs â it is solely a matter of faith with them. All the physical evidence goes solely against them.
You know when someone has lost an argument they become abusive, Talia Perkins.
I know you do not understand accurate description is not abuse.