by Anon on X
In the aftermath of the Cass Review, one of the most uncomfortable questions facing the British children’s charitable sector is this: how did the country’s largest and most trusted children’s charities become active promoters of a model of care that systematic evidence reviews later judged to be built on weak foundations, inadequate assessment, and serious developmental risks?
Organisations whose very purpose is to safeguard vulnerable children, including the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society, Action for Children, Coram and Cafcass, did not merely stay silent. They issued joint statements, produced training materials, and lobbied in ways that aligned them firmly with the gender affirmative approach, an approach that prioritised affirmation and access to medical pathways over the kind of holistic, exploratory assessment that the Cass Review ultimately demanded.
The Joint Advocacy That Preceded the Reckoning
In October 2020, during the Bell v Tavistock High Court case challenging the prescription of puberty blockers to children under sixteen, these four charities released a joint statement: “As children’s charities, we believe in, support, and stand in solidarity with all children and young people who are trans, non-binary, gender non-conforming, or exploring their gender identity. On matters of health treatment all children have the right to be listened to independently and have their wishes taken seriously, including children and young people who identify as trans and who may be undergoing hormone treatment therapy.”
This was not cautious safeguarding language. It framed medical intervention as aligned with children’s rights and portrayed listening to the child as equivalent to affirming a fixed transgender identity. The statement was issued while the High Court was examining precisely the question of whether children under sixteen could give informed consent to a medical intervention with incompletely understood long term consequences. The charities did not engage with that question. They answered it by implication.