Statement from LWD Scotland about motion from Glasgow Cathcart CLP at Scottish Conference

We gather that there have been allegations, including from the platform at the Scottish Labour Conference, that the motion submitted by Glasgow Cathcart CLP included misinformation. These are serious allegations but appear to lack any substance. Below, we take each sentence from the motion (in inverted commas) and investigate whether any suggestion of misinformation could have any substance.

1 Context of the motion in support of the Cass Review
On 21 February this motion was proposed, with the support of the Scottish Executive Committee of Scottish Labour, to delegates at Scottish Conference. Watch the proposer’s and seconder’s inspiring speeches here.

For a copy of the full text of the motion, and more on the background of the debate follow the link.

The conference voted by a show of hands against the motion. For political comment on this vote against the motion see here.

2 LWD Scotland’s response to inaccurate allegations about the motion

We gather that there have been allegations, including from the platform at the Scottish Labour Conference, that the motion submitted by Glasgow Cathcart CLP included misinformation. These are serious allegations but appear to lack any substance.

“The Cass Review has been adopted by both NHS England and NHS Scotland and aims to ensure that children and young people who are questioning their gender identity or experiencing gender dysphoria receive a high standard of care, that meets their needs, is safe, holistic and effective.”

This is a statement of fact.

“The Cass Review has scrutinised available scientific evidence and concludes that the policy of immediate “affirmation” of a cross sex identity of children of all ages rather than supportive “watchful waiting” is not supported by the evidence as it is not possible to predict who will persist in a cross sex identity. It is not possible to be certain that a policy of “affirmation” is risk free for children.

This is an accurate interpretation of the Cass Review’s findings. In its overview, the Cass Report states, “Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity”. Paragraph 76 of the Report concludes that, “ Those who had socially transitioned at an earlier age and/or prior to being seen at clinic were more likely to proceed to a medical pathway”. Therefore, as the motion says, it is not possible to be certain that a policy of “affirmation” is risk-free, since an attendant risk could be that children for whom gender dysphoria might have resolved naturally during puberty (as it has done for the vast majority of children diagnosed in early childhood) will be put on a track towards unnecessary medicalisation, which as the introduction to the Cass Review notes, “may not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress”.

“Current Scottish Government guidance Supporting transgender young people in schools: guidance for Scottish schools relies on the necessity of unquestioning affirmation and is therefore not congruent with the Cass Review.”

The motion is correct. Throughout the guidance, affirmation is presented as a risk-free, administrative procedure, and conversely presents denial of a ‘trans identity’ as risky. For instance, on page 14 the guidance advises, “If others deny this [a pupil’s wish to live as the opposite sex], it may have a detrimental effect on the young person’s wellbeing, relationships and behaviour”. On page 21, the guidance advises, “If a young person comes out to you, it’s also important not to deny their identity, or overly question their understanding of their gender identity”. Page 35 cautions that, “A transgender young person may not have told their family about their gender identity. Inadvertent disclosure could cause needless stress for the young person”.

There is nothing in the guidance about the risks associated with early social transition, and indeed there is no information on the overwhelming body of evidence showing that gender dysphoria resolves naturally in puberty for the majority of young people. Neither is there any information on the vulnerability of gender-questioning children and young people. Paragraph 31 of the Cass Report notes, “Among referrals [to gender identity clinics] there is a greater complexity of presentation with high levels of neurodiversity and/or co-occurring mental health issues and a higher prevalence than in the general population of adverse childhood experiences and looked after children”.

There is nothing in the guidance to alert teachers and schools to these additional vulnerabilities and the attendant safeguarding imperatives of unquestioning affirmation in these contexts.

“The Guidance also encourages mixed sex sleeping arrangements on school residential trips in certain circumstances and does not make clear that only same sex adults are suitable chaperones for children of both sexes.”

The motion is correct. There is nothing in the Guidance to suggest that only same-sex adults are suitable chaperones for children. Page 32 of the guidance states, “If a transgender young person wants to share a room [on a residential trip] with other young people who share their gender identity, they should be able to do so, as long as the rights of all those involved are considered and respected”. The Guidance says nothing on how any resulting conflict of rights should be resolved.

Elsewhere, in relation to toilets, the Guidance suggests (p28-9) that anyone raising concerns about sharing a toilet with a transgender young person (presumably of the opposite sex) “schools should seek to dispel any misconceptions: a transgender young person’s presence does not constitute inappropriate behaviour”.

In other words, the Guidance implies that providing toilets on the basis of gender identity rather than sex should be the norm, and that unless there is evidence of inappropriate behaviour, pupils and their parents should not be allowed to assert boundaries on the basis of comfort, privacy and dignity. It would not be unreasonable for teachers to apply this finding to residential trips, in the absence of any suggestions on addressing rights conflicts in the Guidance.

We accordingly see no defensible reasons for claiming that the motion contains misinformation, and we call on those who have made these claims to show us their working. If they cannot do so, we expect all such allegations to be withdrawn.

Schools and teachers need the best guidance possible if they are to appropriately support the growing numbers of school pupils experiencing gender dysphoria and distress. Guidance provided to schools needs to be based on and compliant with the best, most up-to-date evidence as set out in the Cass Review. We therefore join with Glasgow Cathcart CLP in calling for the current Guidance to be withdrawn and replaced with Cass-compliant advice.

LWD Scotland, 21.02.25