Far-right lawyers recently invoked the controversial Cass Review in the Supreme Court case Chiles v. Salazar, where a Colorado therapist is contesting a state law prohibiting conversion therapy. An attorney from the Alliance Defending Freedom claimed the report indicates that transitioning can cause significant harm. In contrast, the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) released a strong critique of the Cass Review, emphasizing its lack of scientific rigor and ideological bias.
The MJA’s article, featuring experts in transgender health, debunks myths perpetuated by the Cass Review, which was led by Dr. Hilary Cass, who lacks expertise in gender dysphoria treatment. Although the review was commissioned to seek more evidence for gender-affirming care, its flawed conclusions have resulted in decreased access to care for trans youth.
The MJA points out that gender-affirming care is unfairly scrutinized compared to other medical fields, leading to harmful policies that restrict access to puberty blockers and hormone therapies. Furthermore, the Cass Review contains internal contradictions, acknowledging some benefits of puberty suppression while recommending barriers to care. It also mischaracterizes transgender identities as problems, disregarding the plight faced by trans youth who are not accepted.
Ultimately, the MJA asserts that trans identities should not be framed as social issues but recognized as valid demographic realities. They call for a more nuanced and informed approach to transgender health care that genuinely incorporates expert and community feedback.
