Observations on the Lib Dem Response to the Cass Review

The final report of the Cass Review gender identity services for children and young people was published on 10th April and immediately welcomed by both the government and Labour. Health Secretary Victoria Atkins said of the report, the result of four years of work, “This review strikes hard and sure at an area of public policy where fashionable cultural values have overtaken evidence, safety and biological reality.” Her Labour counterpart, Wes Streeting, called it “a watershed moment”. So far there has been no comment from either Lib Dem leader Ed Davey or Health spokesperson Daisy Cooper. 

Meanwhile, wider Lib Dem commentary has been lacklustre and chaotic in equal measure. 

10th April

First to comment was Lib Dem Director of Communications, Olly Grender on Iain Dale’s LBC phone-in, Cross Talk on 10th April. Olly said the Lib Dems thought the report was “broadly good” and emphasised the need for talking therapies. She also mentioned excessive waiting lists and a “toxic debate”. We will come to these latter two points later. Her positive reference to talking therapies was a welcome departure from official policy, which calls for “A criminal ban on all forms of conversion therapy; including those claiming to be psychiatric, psychological, therapeutic, or consultative”.  We commended her performance in this short tweet thread.

Next up, also on 10th April, was Cllr Chris Northwood with an article in Lib Dem Voice, an online magazine and arguably considered the voice of the Lib Dems, boldly titled The culture war of the “gender-critical” has broken the NHS. At the time of writing, Northwood had read only the the summary and recommendations of the Cass Review final report but was nonetheless able to perceive - “running through it” -  “the scars of the so-called ‘culture war’—a social movement where transphobes who hold so-called “gender critical” beliefs have been campaigning to marginalise trans people and roll-back hard won protection in equality law”. 

Northwood argues that the institutional failings identified by Cass can be attributed to “anti-trans campaigners” funded “allegedly by far right America fundamentalists”. Anyone wishing to contest such a claim would find themselves unable to make a comment in the comments section of the article due to Lib Dem Voice’s editorial policy of only allowing comments with which the editors agree.

On 13th April LGBT+ Lib Dems Initial Statement was published. This statement takes a radically different stance from the party’s official line. It also doesn’t make a lot of sense: “We are very disappointed by the lack of evidence leading to a conclusion which infantilises autistic people and is undeniable transphobia towards young adults and people.”

The statement is very heavy on “rights” and very light on safeguards and medical ethics. This discrepancy is at the heart of the problem, and is one of the reasons children have been given experimental and potentially harmful treatments by activist doctors at the Tavistock, instead of having their underlying mental health issues addressed according to normal clinical practice. 

Cass has contrasted those “who ​​take a social justice approach” with those “who urge more caution”. Children should not be made pawns in an adult’s social justice crusade. What they need is evidence-based care and to be shielded from harm.

On 17th April in the government’s Statement on the report, Lib Dem Equalities Spokesperson Christine Jardine MP asked a question of the Minister: “How will she overcome the recruitment and staffing problems that have been created by this toxic debate?”

We are beginning to see a pattern from official party spokespeople: waiting lists; toxic debate. Notably absent from Christine’s comments were any words welcoming the report or committing to implementing its recommendations.

Also on 17th April an eagle eyed member of the public spotted that the LGBT+ Lib Dems statement was appearing on the party website as if it were the official party statement.

This generated a considerable amount of interest and commentary online. A few hours later the statement was renamed “LGBT+ Lib Dems Executive Committee Initial Response”, before finally being removed from the Lib Dem website later that day.

17th April 

Sarah Dyke MP also responded, prompted by a tweet flagging up the rogue statement on the website. Like Olly and Christine, her response mentions “waiting lists” and “toxic debate”. 

Weds 18th April

In the Statement on Cass in the House of Lords Lib Dem Lords, Equalities Spokesperson Baroness Burt cited Stonewall, criticised the government’s statement and talked about “waiting lists” and a “toxic debate”.

During the same statement, Lib Dem Lords Health Spokesperson Lord Allan asked, in a refreshing departure from the now more than familiar standard party lines, about how the government is going to ensure patients at the adult services will have the confidence to participate in the proposed research.

This is a very good question. Since the publication of the final report there has been a hysterical response from activists trying desperately to frame Cass as a “transphobic” and “a bad faith actor”. Examples of this can be found among our own Lib Dem activists documented in this article and elsewhere. Other activists are already specifically mobilising to discourage patients of the adult clinics from taking part in the research.

Clearly the battle to find evidence to properly understand the effects of gender “medicine” is not yet won. 

Back to the Lib Dem standard lines….

On “waiting lists”

Our spokespeople are decrying the long waiting lists as if this is just another problem of NHS underfunding and therefore a stick with which to beat the government. Lib Dem commentary so far has largely ignored the harm caused to children, institutional malpractice and ideological capture exposed in the report. 

When we talk about waiting lists, are we simply saying that these children should have all been medicated sooner? Responding to a report on children being harmed by complaining that there is a backlog of children waiting to be harmed makes no sense. Until you consider that party policy would in fact endorse a continuation of the practice for which there has been found to be no evidence of safety. Lib Dem policy calls for: ”The right of transgender and gender-variant children to receive puberty-blocking medications until they are eligible for hormone replacement therapy,”

On “the toxic debate”

Since the publication of the report there has been widespread praise for those whistleblowers both within and outwith the Tavistock GIDS who raised the alarm over the years often at great personal cost. Had it not been for their courage and selflessness in entering the “toxic” fray to speak out for the interests of children, the Review would never have happened. Will any Lib Dem acknowledge the importance of these people’s contributions?

It is clear that the “toxicity” being referred to has arisen not from debate but from its suppression: whistleblowers silenced and vilified, conferences shut down and speakers cancelled. The responsibility for the so-called “toxicity” lies with those who have stood in the way of debate and scrutiny, not with those who have tried to speak. One organisation which you might expect to step up to the challenge of facilitating a national debate on this issue is the BBC. With very few notable exceptions it has entirely failed to do this. Another, which we know a lot about, is the Liberal Democrats. If there is a toxic atmosphere in our party it is because the leadership has being unable, or unwilling, to adjudicate between members with different views, instead choosing to back one faction to the exclusion of everyone else, even if these means betraying its supposed fundamental principles.

The “waiting list” + “toxic debate” lines appears to be worded in such a way as to be able to suggest that the party supports or opposes Cass depending on who is hearing it, and what they want to hear. Spokespeople have neither welcomed the report, nor rejected it. They are trying to tread a line between what is morally and politically defensible, and party policy (which is neither). The best way to resolve this would be to change the policy, as we have tried to help them do, on several occasions, the latest attempt of which is documented here.

We lament attempts by Lib Dems to make political hay out of the publication of the Cass Review final report. It is undeniable that the medical scandal that it documents happened under the watch of the Conservative government. But the time to intervene to prevent harm was back then, when all of this was happening. Until now the opposition has been missing in action. 

A certain level of humility all round is called for. So far, one of the only opposition politicians who has been able to muster this has been Wes Streeting, who has admitted that his previous reliance on thought terminating slogans as a proxy for serious engagement was ill-judged. This admission will serve him well, allowing him to move forward with a clean slate rather than be constantly questioned over his past failings and hypocrisies. Sometimes it is better to just grasp the nettle and admit you were wrong and take steps to try not to get it wrong again. For the Lib Dems, as a democratic organisation, a good place to start would be Conference.