Colleagues Allege Cass Recommended Book Comparing Transition To The Holocaust

Dr. Hillary Cass, author of the Cass Review, reportedly recommended gender clinicians read "Irreversible Damage," a book written by an anti-trans activist that compared transition to the holocaust.

Left: Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier, Right: Still of Dr. Hillary Cass from Cass Review Video

On Thursday, youth gender clinicians Dr. Max Davie and Dr. Lorna Hobbs broke their silence on the negative impact and factual errors found in the Cass Review in a joint document. The clinicians, who have served in gender clinics in the United Kingdom and have been involved in the transition of gender identity services to regional clinics, highlighted inaccuracies in the report and shared their personal experiences treating transgender youth. One of the most explosive claims in the document is that Dr. Hillary Cass, described in the review as “a senior clinician with no prior involvement or fixed views in this area,” recommended that gender clinicians read a book by an anti-transgender activist that compares youth gender transition to the Holocaust.

The gender clinicians allege in their document that prior to the initiation of the Cass Review, “Dr. Cass expressed her dismay and shock at the practice of medical transition to one of us before she started this review, and recommended strongly that we read the gender critical polemic ‘Irreversible Damage’ on the subject. She is described on the Cass Review website as an expert who came in with no fixed views—we will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.”

"Irreversible Damage" is a much-criticized book written by influential anti-transgender activist Abigail Shrier. Shrier has previously stated that allowing transgender people to change their birth certificates easily would lead to rape, opposes transgender people using bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity, and calls transgender acceptance “misogyny in progressive clothing.” The book has been considered so extreme that it has been pulled by some publishers.

One portion of the book even compares youth gender transition to the experiences of Jewish children in the holocaust:

“And yet, unlike so many of the other Holocaust survivors I’ve known, she had never married nor had children. She remained in perpetual isolation, marooned on her own island. What had been stolen from her left no physical trace, but the psychological lacerations were profound; her identity had been eroded by the deceptions of a mind that had finally managed to fool itself.

Of course, unlike the girls who come out as trans, Mary hadn’t chosen her new identity; it had been forced upon her. She had wanted to stay with her family, to be her parents’ daughter, to be known by the name they had given her. But after years of living in a community in which everyone regarded her according to her new, Christian identity, she had managed to expunge who she once was. The erasure was so complete, she couldn’t recover what she had lost, even when she might have wanted to.”

The revelation is striking and serves as new evidence that the Cass Review was a political document, not a scientific one. Previously, it was uncovered through court documents that Cass had met with DeSantis appointees to aid in banning trans care in Florida. Similarly, a top advisor on the review, Dr. Kaltiala, met many times and even served as an expert witness to support the Florida ban. Other members of the team were found to be lobbying against conversion therapy bans, and some have ties to SPLC-designated hate groups. Outgoing Conservative Women & Equalities Minister Badenoch admitted that “gender critical” individuals were placed in health roles to facilitate the Cass Review—a mechanism remarkably similar to how Florida’s review led to the banning of care in the state, borrowing from DeSantis’ strategy.

Meanwhile, transgender people were barred from serving important decision-making roles in the Cass Review. The review deliberately excluded transgender individuals from the advisory committee or team, stating it "deliberately does not contain subject matter experts or people with lived experience of gender services."

Since its publication, the Cass Review has led to intense crackdowns on transgender care in the United Kingdom. Puberty blockers have been banned, pending a clinical trial expected next year, citing the review. Meanwhile, the review has been used in the United States to ban care in several Republican-controlled states.

However, acceptance of the review has not been as prevalent outside the United Kingdom. In the United States, the Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics heavily criticized the review and its recommendations. In Australia and New Zealand, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists rejected the call for a “government inquiry” into trans care and reaffirmed its commitment to gender-affirming care. In Canada, the Canadian Pediatric Society dismissed the Cass Review's recommendations, stating that “current evidence shows puberty blockers to be safe when used appropriately, and they remain an option to be considered within a wider view of the patient's mental and psychosocial health.” Children’s Healthcare Canada, which oversees the country’s children’s hospitals, concurred, stating, "Our position remains unchanged on the topic." Most recently, the British Medical Association voted in favor of a resolution calling the review “unsubstantiated.”

The latest revelation of Dr. Cass’s ideological bias towards transgender care could further erode scientific support for the Cass Review, as its perceived credibility hinges on the notion that Cass was an impartial evaluator. The authors of the document detail numerous other shortcomings of the Cass Review; their full assessment can be found in their original document.