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??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.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

However, the UCU motion ¨C which was remitted from the?union¡¯s congress in May due to an industrial dispute?¨C 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¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

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.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Campus resource:?¡®Strengthening institution-wide commitment to trans inclusion is more important than ever¡¯

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.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

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.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com