The Big U-Turn — British Doctors' Group Now Accepts Key Study on Transgender Care for Minors
By Bob HogeLately, one can’t be faulted for thinking the Brits have gone insane. They have taken sharp left turns on so many issues, from immigration to free speech to healthcare to their support for the U.S., that sometimes they don’t seem recognizable anymore.
But now a U.K. doctor’s trade union, the British Medical Association (BMA), is actually showing some resemblance to normal behavior as it makes a sharp turnaround in its view of a landmark study on transgender care. The report is called the Cass Review, and it questioned liberal orthodoxy on the subject of treating children suffering from gender dysphoria. That orthodoxy is basically, "go all in on a child's claim to be a different gender than they were born with and let 'em have whatever surgeries and drugs they want."
The Cass Review, published in April 2024 and conducted by Dr Hilary Cass, found that children and young people were let down by a lack of research and evidence on medical interventions, adding that NHS gender medicine was "built on shaky foundations."
Dr Cass also advocated for "extreme caution" in administering gender-affirming hormone treatments, along with a "clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18".
Of course, the BMA quickly rejected the report’s findings, calling them “unsubstantiated.” They’re suddenly singing a different tune these days, however:
Now, the chair of the BMA’s board of science and the new report’s lead author, Professor David Strain, has praised Dr. Cass' approach and has said that he couldn’t highlight a single recommendation of the 32 included in the Cass report that the BMA opposed.
Oh. Well, that’s a bit bloody different, isn’t it?
Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School and frequent pundit Jonathan Turley notes the about-face could have major effects in the United States because gender extremists in this country have used the BMA’s initial rejection of the report’s findings to push their own ideology:
...The Cass Review has been raised before the Supreme Court and has been used as support for state bans on certain treatments for minors. In June of 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Skrmetti to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 7, 2026
The widespread blowback against gender-affirming care for minors was caused by the movement itself — because, like with so many extremist causes, supporters simply took things too far. They went from “don’t discriminate against trans people” to “you must accept that it’s moral to perform life-altering surgeries on 13-year-olds — and you must vociferously support it, or you’re a bigot.”
The criticisms were never about endorsing discrimination; they were about protecting children. You can be you, and I can be me, but you should have to be at least 18 years old before you’re allowed to opt for disfiguring optional surgeries or life-altering hormone treatments. It’s not complicated.
The Brits’ turnaround is a step in the right direction, but the BMA still wants doctors to have the option of prescribing hormones to young people. There’s still a long way to go in the journey back to sanity, and I’d be happier if both the Association and the Cass Review outright condemned all optional medical gender treatment for minors. In most states, you have to be 18 to get a tattoo (though some allow it with parental consent). Shouldn’t you have to wait until you’re at least that age before taking drugs that make you grow breasts or undergoing mutilating surgery?
Slowly, but surely, some sanity is returning to both the U.K and the U.S. on this subject. Let’s hope the rational argument continues to win out.
 |
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐