Resolution Statement – 06304-24 Kidd v The Sunday Post

Summary of Complaint

1. Graeme Kidd complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Post breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Risk of psychological damage to kids from trans ideology being taught in classrooms”, published on 17 November 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page 13 - reported on the impact of “trans ideology” being taught in classrooms. The article said: "Written by NHS England’s head paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass, the review states that not only are gender-questioning children harmed by trans ideology, children who are asked to accept that a classmate is able to change sex in what is known as social transitioning are also harmed."

3. The complainant contacted the publication on 18 November directly. He said the article breached Clause 1 as the Cass Review never mentioned "trans ideology" and therefore the claim that “the review states that not only are gender-questioning children harmed by trans ideology” was inaccurate. He also said the review specifically stated that gender-questioning children were harmed by their gender distress, and that this was not an ideology.

4. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to state “children who are asked to accept that a classmate is able to change sex in what is known as social transitioning are also harmed.” He said children who socially transitioned after being friends with another child who socially transitioned were not interviewed or studied as part of the Cass Review and there was, therefore, no basis for this claim.

5. The publication responded on 20 November – it did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the review did raise concerns about the harms that can affect children influenced by their peers. It quoted the following example: “Peer influence during this stage of life is very powerful. As well as the influence of social media, the Review has heard accounts of female students forming intense friendships with other gender-questioning or transgender students at school and then identifying as trans themselves.” It also said that Dr Cass pointed out that those who have been socially transitioned at an early age can have a higher risk of suicide in later life according to some studies. It explained that Dr Cass had raised concerns over early social transition: “There are different views on the benefits versus the harms of early social transition. Some consider that it may improve mental health and social and educational participation for children experiencing gender-related distress. Others consider that a child who might have desisted at puberty is more likely to have an altered trajectory, culminating in medical intervention which will have life-long implications.”

6. The publication said that Dr Cass had raised concerns about social and peer influence on young people, and it provided the following example from the review: “The data on young people’s mental health, social media use and increased risks associated with online harm give an appreciation and understanding that going through the teenage years is increasingly difficult, with stressors that previous generations did not face. This can be a time when mental distress can present through physical manifestations such as eating disorders or body dysmorphic disorders. It is likely that for some young people this presents as gender related distress.”

7. The publication provided a quote from a former government advisor on educational psychology who said about the Cass Review: “Overall the findings showed that evidence from Cass's research on the benefit of social transition is as shaky as the evidence of benefit for puberty blockers. One is a medical experiment, the other a social experiment. A controlled clinical trial for puberty blockers may or may not be given ethical approval. However, school is not the place to enrol children into a social trial on the benefits/risks of social transition.”

8. The complainant said that the examples the publication had provided did not support the article’s claims that “the review states that not only are gender-questioning children harmed by trans ideology, children who are asked to accept that a classmate is able to change sex in what is known as social transitioning are also harmed”. He said Dr Cass never mentioned "trans ideology" and never investigated "children who are asked to accept that a classmate is able to change sex".

9. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

10. The publication said the term “trans ideology” related to the thrust of the story about the material that children were exposed to such as that they can change their sex. It said the report stated that “affirming and facilitating a social transition is an active medical intervention which may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning”. The publication said the report also said that gender affirming actions should only be undertaken under certain strict criteria including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and with parental involvement and clinical supervision.

11. On 14 February the publication said it would publish a clarification in the event the Committee considered the article significantly inaccurate. It also offered to publish the complainant’s comments in the form of a letter to the publication.

12. The complainant said he was not interested in writing a letter. He added that while the report did call for caution in social and medical transitioning, it did not claim that children are harmed by "trans ideology" or that classmates suffer harm from the social transition of their classmates. He said the Cass Review did not frame its concerns in ideological terms, but rather focused on the clinical and psychological aspects of gender-related care, rather than discussing political or ideological perspectives. The complainant provided a list of organisations which had criticised the Cass Report.

13. On 26 February, the publication offered to publish a clarification in its letters section which would say the following:

“In our story on November 17, 2024 headlined "Risk of psychological damage to kids from trans ideology being taught in classrooms" in which experts expressed their concern at how trans ideology written by pro-trans groups is being published in Scottish schools, we stated:

"Written by NHS England’s head paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass, the review states that not only are gender-questioning children harmed by trans ideology, children who are asked to accept that a classmate is able to change sex in what is known as social transitioning are also harmed."

We accept that this is not this is not included in the Cass Review.

Instead, Dr Cass said there was weak evidence to support putting some children on a medical pathway at an early age.

The Review also states on social transition.

There has been a shift in recommendations [by World Professional Association for Transgender Health] which argues in favour of social transition in childhood. It justifies this change in stance on the basis that there is more evidence on improved mental health outcomes. However, none of the statements in favour of social transition in childhood are supported by the findings of the University of York’s systematic review.

Given the weakness of the research in this area there remain many unknowns about the impact of social transition. In particular, it is unclear whether it alters the trajectory of gender development, and what short- and longer-term impact this may have on mental health.“

14. The complainant said the clarification published in the letters section would not be prominent enough where the inaccuracy remained publicly accessible online. The complainant requested the clarification be published on the online article.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Mediated Outcome

15. On 3 March the publication offered to publish the previously offered clarification as a print clarification and as a footnote to the online article.

16. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.

17. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 24/11/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/03/2025