During today’s Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) select committee hearing, an exchange between MPs and Professor Gary Butler raised questions about the delayed publication of the GIDS puberty blocker study.
The relevant questioning begins at 15:12 in this video: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/bacb0793-8233-46d8-9a9d-e48e31ec0149
When asked why the results took so long to be released, Professor Butler responded by stating, “I wasn’t directly involved in that study.” However, this statement was misleading, as he was in fact the second author on the 2021 published paper detailing the study. This discrepancy between his response and his role in the research points to a concerning instance of evasiveness and misrepresentation during the session.
The misleading response from Professor Butler was not an isolated incident, but rather part of a broader pattern throughout the session. Some MPs asked pertinent questions, yet none appeared to be in a position to assess the veracity of the answers they were given by the three witnesses. This lack of scrutiny highlights a concerning gap in accountability, as MPs were unable to fully engage with the answers provided.
It is also unclear what the Women and Equalities Select Committee hoped to achieve in this two-hour evidence session, given that the key issues had already been thoroughly examined with scientific rigor in the four-year-long Cass Review. The session seemed to fall short of its potential, as it did not offer new insights or contribute significantly to the ongoing debate.
A more meaningful engagement with the latest evidence could have been facilitated if the committee had ensured the attendance of Dr. Cass or one of the authors of the York Systematic Review into Puberty Blockers. This lack of relevant expertise in the room may have limited the effectiveness of the session in advancing the conversation and understanding around such an important and complex issue.
As it stands, the session’s shortcomings, coupled with evasive responses from key witnesses, raise serious questions about the select committee’s ability to thoroughly investigate the evidence and hold relevant parties accountable. A more informed and transparent discussion is needed if meaningful progress is to be made in addressing the medical, ethical, and social dimensions of the treatment of gender distress in children and young people.
Hannah Barnes covered the hearing in greater depth for the New Statesman, and is well worth a read.