Gender Identity in Social Work 2 years on: The Cass Review, Rachel Meade & Lizzie Pitt tribunals and For Women Scotland
- Emma D.
- Sep 14
- 12 min read
I have now been a registered and working Social Worker for 2 years: My original concerns about the impact of gender identity ideology on Social Work began in 2019 with articles published in The Times newspaper regarding concerns about the children’s GID (Gender Identity Development) services at the Tavistock clinic, including that staff were discouraged from raising their concerns about practice with the Safeguarding Lead, Social Worker Sonia Appleby.
I was a student Social Worker at the time working with adults but kept my eye on relevant news articles and reports to see how this issue progressed.
I began a more in depth exploration in 2021 while on placement working with children in care and started my Substack in January 2023. I wish I had more time to share what I learned in my deep dive into the history of gender identity ideology and how it has been written into policies and guidance across UK institutions (and globally), but for this article I want to focus on the changes we’ve had in the UK over the last 2 years, and what hasn’t changed.
Policies and Guidance where I work:
In the Local Authority where I work their pro-affirmation policy for children quietly disappeared in May this year; with no announcement it was updated along with other policies. To be fair to the LA I work for there was never any mandatory training on working with transgender service users (the training is there for employees who search it out), however the mandatory diversity training in 2023 included telling staff that anyone is entitled to use any toilet in line with their gender identity and that if anyone objects they (the person objecting) should be directed to use alternative facilities. I retook the training earlier this year and that section was no longer in the training.
There are still some very concerning links on the training website though, to organisations which push the affirmation approach such as Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence, and no links to organisations which encourage a more questioning approach such as Genspect. The affirmative approach pushes the narrative that people are who they say they are and that we need to affirm their self-declared identities without questioning them. It includes giving people (including children) access to body modification through puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries such as mastectomy and castration to align their bodies to fit their self-declared gender identity.
In the last 2 years we have had the final Cass review published, there have been successful tribunal outcomes to cases brought by gender critical Social Workers Rachel Meade and Lizzie Pitt and this year we had the ruling from the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland vs Scottish government:
Following concerns raised about the Gender Identity Development Service for children and teenagers at the Tavistock clinic in England Dr Hilary Cass, paediatrician, was tasked with carrying out a review. This took 4 years and included systematic reviews of the evidence for the use of puberty blockers in children and young people who experienced distress with their gender identity/ sexed bodies.
The review looked into the reasons for the 2000% increase in referrals to the clinic from around 2010 and found that “there is broad agreement that it is a result of a complex interplay between biological, psychological and social factors. This balance of factors will be different in each individual.”
The systematic reviews found that published studies were of poor quality and so “there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.”
“The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.”
“For the majority of young people, a medical pathway may not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.”
Successful Tribunals:
Rachel Meade Tribunal
Rachel Meade was investigated by SWE after a complaint from an ex-colleague in 2020 that Rachel had posted “transphobic content” on her (private) Facebook page. Rachel had shared posts raising concerns about the proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act and introduce gender ‘self id’. SWE felt that the concerns were serious and there were reasonable grounds for them to investigate. They informed Rachel in November 2020, she informed her employer and there was no suggestion that they were going to carry out their own disciplinary process.
In July 2021 SWE offered Rachel the choice between a public one year warning and going to Fitness to Practice panel. Rachel accepted the warning hoping that would be the end of the matter, however Westminster City Council then suspended Rachel on gross misconduct charges along with 3 of her managers (for not escalating the original complaint to higher management).
Rachel was suspended until July 2022; during this time Maya Forstater had brought a case against her employers for discrimination on her gender critical beliefs, on 6 July 2022 the judgment was handed down and found that Maya had been discriminated against. The judge found that gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010 because they are “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. These are the beliefs that sex is a biological fact, there are 2 sexes, sex is immutable (can’t be changed) and that it matters in society.
Rachel then felt able to appeal the warning, a Fitness to Practice hearing took place in October 2022, the warning was withdrawn and regulatory proceedings discontinued. The proceedings had taken both an emotional and financial toll on Rachel and she took SWE and WCC to tribunal for discriminatory treatment on the basis of her gender critical beliefs.
In January 2024 the tribunal found in Rachel’s favour, Social Work England and Westminster City Council were found to have treated Rachel unfairly and were ordered to pay a total of £52,880.55 in damages as compensation for injury to feelings, and aggravated damages. Social Work England was ordered to pay £5,463.56 “as exemplary damages” as a result of “its serious abuse” of its regulatory power”.
The Tribunal stated that exemplary damages are “designed to punish conduct that is oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional”, and said, “Awards of exemplary damages are reserved for the most serious abuses of governmental power.”
Social Work England and WCC were also ordered to train their managers on freedom of expression and protected beliefs.
Lizzie Pitt Tribunal
Lizzy Pitt is a social worker and was employed by Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC), she is a lesbian and holds gender critical views. During an online workplace LGBTQIA+ peer support group in January 2023, Lizzie and another lesbian colleague expressed gender-critical views. When Lizzie joined the meeting, she declined to give her pronouns, and there was discussion about sex and gender in which she and her colleague maintained that there were only two sexes and that it should be possible to run lesbian-only groups and social events.
Five staff members filed a formal complaint with CCC’s human-resources department accusing Pitt of “symbolic violence” and inducing significant distress, including sleepless nights and anxiety. One attendee said he found it “quite inappropriate” that she and her colleague had commented on “transwomen participating in women’s sports and sharing women’s spaces”.
CCC carried out a 5 month internal investigation into Lizzie’s conduct which concluded that her remarks were “non-inclusive” and had caused offence and “a detrimental impact on the mental health and well-being” of the complainants. As a result she was subject to disciplinary action, including a formal management instruction, and ordered not to attend the LGBTQIA+ network. She was instructed that she must ensure that “her personal views and beliefs did not manifest themselves in comments or actions in the workplace that might discriminate against others on grounds of a protected characteristic”.
Lizzie Pitt brought claims against CCC for discrimination and harassment related to her sexual orientation and her gender-critical beliefs. On the morning of the scheduled hearing (29 July 2024) to decide the claim, CCC conceded that its behaviour had amounted to harassment of Pitt on the basis of belief and sexual orientation, and agreed to pay the compensation she claimed in full and to organise training on freedom of speech in the workplace.
The parties agreed to the terms of remedy and CCC was ordered to pay £54,000, including £22,000 for injury to feelings.
For Women Scotland vs Scottish Government Supreme Court Ruling:
For Women Scotland is a grassroots women’s group founded in June 2018 amid growing unease about how women’s rights would be affected by the Scottish Government’s plans to reform the Gender Recognition Act to allow for self-declaration of sex.
In February 2022 they won their appeal of a judicial review. The Court of Session ruled that the Scottish Government exceeded its powers by including transwomen in the definition of woman in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The judges restated that the protected characteristic of sex refers to either a male or a female and that provisions in favour of women must, by definition, exclude those who are biologically male. It confirms that sex is significant in law and that women’s concerns about the undermining of the protected characteristic are valid.
Following this judgement the Scottish government published revised statutory guidance, however this guidance again included transwomen under the definition of women as long as those transwomen (men who identify as women) have a GRC (gender recognition certificate).
For Women Scotland took this to a 2nd judicial review, initially Lady Haldane concurred with the Scottish Government that due to the interaction of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and Equality Act 2010 the definition of sex in the Equality Act includes people with a GRC as this legally changes their sex.
For Women Scotland appealed this decision, their appeal was granted on 16 February 2024 and was heard at the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK: “The Supreme Court hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population” (UK Supreme Court 2025).
The final judgement was given on 16 April 2025 (https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf) , the Supreme Court considered the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and The Equality Act 2010 and the meaning of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010. Their ruling was that for the law to make any sense the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex and is not changed by possession of a GRC. They were clear that transgender people are protected from discrimination and harassment under the category of Gender Reassignment and that the Equality Act recognises sex and gender reassignment as two distinct categories.
The judgement also clarifies that provision of single sex services is permitted and if a service states that it is single sex but allows the opposite sex to use the service if they identify as transgender it then becomes a mixed sex service and could face claims of discrimination from both sexes. The judgement from the Supreme Court reiterates that it is possible to discriminate on the basis of Gender Reassignment when providing single sex services.
This is not a new law, the Supreme Court made a judgement to clarify how to interpret the Equality Act 2010. It is in fact clear from the original explanatory notes to the Equality Act 2010 that discriminating on the grounds of Gender Reassignment is lawful when providing single sex services; the example given is “A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.”
Guidance for Social Workers?
in spite of the Cass review showing the lack of evidence for “gender affirmation” being the best approach and the clarity from the Supreme Court about the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010 our Social Work organisations and those we work for are not reflecting this in their policies and guidance.
I know that gender issues are not the ‘bread and butter’ of social work, we have so many other more pressing concerns in our day to day practice, gender identity is only an issue to practitioners if they are working with a service user or family with a trans identity. But without the appropriate guidance on the evidence base we are at risk of making poor decisions and harming rather than helping children and families.
If we are only given guidance that tells us we must accept someone’s transgender identity unquestioningly we are losing one of the most important aspects of social work; our ability to think critically and show professional curiosity.
Anecdotally I have heard through various people of Social Workers telling parents that they must affirm their child’s transgender identity and have threatened to remove them from their care otherwise. I have heard of children in Scotland who have been removed from their parent’s care on this basis.
We have had some interesting discussions on EBSWA about why a high proportion of children who presented to the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) were children in care, we talked about how for some children this gives them control over their life where they had none before. I encourage you to have a listen to some of our discussions either on the website or through your podcast provider.
What Social Work England & BASW say on this issue:
BASW (British Association of Social Workers)
A search on BASW with the term “transgender” brings up their 2021 statement, they have not updated this or published a new statement in spite of the publishing of the Cass Review. In the statement they write that they will
“ develop and publish further policy and practice statements and guidance on trans issues in co-production with trans people, social workers and others with expertise to ensure BASW promotes effective social work practice in this field underpinned by human rights, social justice, good use of evidence and sound ethics.”
4 years later they do not appear to have done this.
Other articles which come up under that search include an article by BASW chair Julia Ross on Social Work’s role following the Cass review published in June 2024, she states that:
“The disconcertingly poor record of both gathering and using data at Tavistock’s GIDS is well documented. As a profession, we must rely on the use of analytic frameworks and strengths-based practise. It is hard to reach firm conclusions without good data.
We understand informally, that recent data is showing that a number of current referrals are ‘social care related’. Once we have access to the data, possibly of a safeguarding nature, we must explore this further.
My thoughts are the following: we have a professional responsibility and a duty of care to children and young people caught up in what is a distressing and confusing time. We have a professional responsibility to support and offer guidance to social workers, our membership and beyond. We have much to offer by reaching out to other professionals to support a multi-disciplinary team approach.”
1 year later and this guidance still appears lacking, I confess I am not a member of BASW (I have lost confidence in our professional bodies) so there may be guidance on the members area, but she is clear that guidance is needed for members and beyond.
Social Work England
The regulator for Social Workers in England, they state that their purpose is to protect the public and raise standards in social work with their regulation being “rooted in the values and principles that underpin the social work profession”. They carry out fitness to practice investigations when people raise complaints against social workers, and to practice as a Social Worker in England we all have to pay an annual registration fee to them.
They don’t create policies or guidance for Social Workers and don’t publish their own policies and guidance for their employees on their website however the treatment of Rachel Meade and the fact that until this month Social Workers were asked for our gender identity on registration makes their lack of impartiality and ideological stance clear.
Following the Rachel Meade tribunal judgement SWE SWE published 2 statements in response to the judgement on 9 January 2024 and 1 May 2024 in which they stated that they are implementing learning, training for investigation teams and will produce guidance on use of social media for Social Workers.
They are currently consulting on this, you can take part here https://www.socialworkengland.org.uk/concerns/decision-making-guidance-concerns-relating-to-social-workers-communicating-online/.
Conclusion
I still have no faith in our regulator to act impartially, I feel they need to publish their own policies and guidance so that those of us registered with them can feel confident that they are acting with integrity, showing professional curiosity themselves and not being unduly influenced by partisan organisations.
BASW have said their role is to offer guidance but that guidance is still lacking.
2 years ago I wanted to know how big an issue gender identity is within Social Work but I only know what happens in the team I work in, I still don’t know what the bigger picture is; how many children and families are being affected by the push for affirmation only and how is this influencing Social Work Practice?
One of our current goals in EBSWA is to send out Freedom of Information requests to find out as much as we can about policies in different Local Authorities and number of trans-identified children open to services. People may wonder “Why do you care? It’s an issue that only affects a tiny proportion of the population?” I urge those people to listen to the stories of the growing numbers of de-transitioners who were mentally suffering in their teenage years and were encouraged to believe that body modification that affects them for the rest of their lives was the way to alleviate their distress.
Benjamin Boyce has a series of YouTube interviews with detransitioners https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRdayXEOwuMFyH-mBwSdI3L2cu4VLznTf
Listen to the stories of women who were married to men who decided they were women and controlled and coerced their wives, these women call themselves ‘trans widows’ because the man they once loved has gone.
I do not wish to demonise any trans identified person, they are human too and deserve respect and empathy, some are vulnerable, others are not, the ‘trans umbrella’ is now so large it shelters some bad actors beneath it. There is evidence that vulnerable adults and children are being harmed by the current trans rights affirmation only agenda, as Social Workers we have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable.
If you are a Social Worker in the UK and have concerns about gender identity ideology and vulnerable service users, on your freedom of speech and ability to have open conversations about ethical dilemmas and on the Social Work profession itself please sign up to the Evidence Based Social Work Alliance.
Comments