Top KC warns that medical experts are scared to give evidence in gender cases

Medical experts are too afraid to provide evidence in court cases about trans procedures for young people, a top KC has warned.

In the first ruling that considered the Cass Review of child gender services in England, The Hon Mrs Justice Frances Judd DBE KC said it had been “impossible to find a consultant endocrinologist in this country who was prepared to give expert evidence”.

The judge, who has specialised in children’s law for 25 years, made the comments during a case of parental disagreement about whether their 16-year-old daughter should be referred to a private gender clinic.

‘Hostile’

Mrs Justice Judd said that despite a lack of experts in some areas, she had “never encountered a case where there was simply no one willing to provide such evidence for the court”.

Quoting from the Cass Review, she highlighted: “There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media, and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour.”

Solicitor Paul Conrathe, who represented the teenager’s mother in the case, said many potential expert witnesses told him their “concerns about being personally vilified and that the grief is not worth it”.

He emphasised that there is a “hostile and intimidating environment for anyone that seeks to question an affirmative approach to hormonal treatment”.

‘Misinformation’

Last month, Dr Hilary Cass said activists must stop trying to undermine her review through “misinformation”.

In an interview with The Times, the highly respected paediatrician said: “If you deliberately try to undermine a report that has looked at the evidence of children’s healthcare, then that’s unforgivable. You are putting children at risk by doing that.”

The day before the final report was published, a trans activist on X claimed the review had “disregarded nearly all studies” over their methodology, while Stonewall told MPs that around “100 studies” had not been included.