Academics have condemned the University and College Union’s decision to campaign against a widely praised independent review into NHS treatment for gender-questioning children, claiming its position is “anti-scientific” and could expose researchers to harassment.
The outcry follows the unanimous vote by the UCU’s national executive committee to adopt a motion which claims that the landmark Cass Review into gender identity services for young people, published in April, “falls short of the standard of rigorous and ethical research expected of research professionals” and “provides no evidence for the ‘new approach’ it recommends”.
The 388-page report by Hilary Cass, a former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, has been hailed as the most extensive and thorough examination of evidence relating to medical care for gender-dysphoric children.
The report, which found there was “remarkably weak” evidence for the effectiveness of treatment given to under-18s, was welcomed by the Conservatives and Labour.
However, the UCU motion – which was remitted from the union’s congress in May due to an industrial dispute – claims the report has “serious methodological flaws” and is defined by its “selective use of evidence and promotion of unevidenced claims”.
The motion asks the union to “commit to working with trans-led organisations to resist the Cass Report recommendations”.
That stance has been criticised by several union members. On X, one academic said the union’s position was now essentially “researchers against research”, a view echoed by others, one of whom questioned the wisdom of having an “academic union campaigning against research”.
Thomas Prosser, professor of European political economy at Cardiff University, told Times Higher Education that the motion “risks making the union appear anti-scientific”.
“What if some of the researchers who worked on the review are UCU members? If this is the case, UCU may expose its own members to harassment,” Professor Prosser said.
The motion’s reference to the “artificially high evidential standards” of the Cass report is likely to relate to concerns raised that some studies supporting the prescribing of puberty blockers to under-18s were disregarded on the basis that they were “low quality”.
However, Dr Cass has described the claims spread online as “completely false”, explaining that many studies deemed of “moderate quality” by University of York researchers were included in her “synthesis” of relevant research.
Using a union motion to argue against a lengthy and detailed report was also unwise, suggested Alice Sullivan, professor of sociology at UCL.
“The notion that the way to counter a scientific report is to vote against it shows a total lack of comprehension of the scientific method. It is sad to see a union which is supposed to represent academics opposing evidence-based medicine,” she said.
THE contacted several NEC members who voted for the motion but none of them responded.
The union has faced criticism before for its interventions on transgender issues, with a motion calling for it to take a stand against gender-critical feminists pulled from its 2022 congress on legal advice that it could breach discrimination law.
A UCU spokesperson said the union was “an unequivocal supporter of trans rights, a position established and repeatedly endorsed by our annual congress”.
“This motion was brought by our members after listening to concerns about the Cass report from the trans community, including LGBTQ charities such as Mermaids and Stonewall.
“Our union will proudly work with trans-led organisations to resist any recommendations that could harm young trans people and will pressure the government for an approach to trans healthcare that affirms and centres the trans community.”
