The Hidden Life of Hilary Cass

Hilary Cass is a pediatrician and medical researcher who was appointed to lead a review for the British National Health Service into gender identity interventions for minors. Her report, which became known as the Cass Review, is one of the largest reviews of the medical evidence for “transitioning” gender-confused children. Her conclusions were not favorable to child mutilation or hormone ‘treatments’, which led to the shutting down of the (now infamous) Tavistock gender identity clinic, which the National Health Service ran. Such interventions are now gradually being abandoned by Britain’s National Health Service.

Since then, she has been inundated with online abuse and threats against her life. British police have concluded that the threats to her safety are legitimate, but their recommendation is merely that she should therefore avoid public transportation and keep a low profile. Using public transportation is a normal part of British life, and activity in the public sphere (if desired) is her right. She is being forced to essentially live in hiding, out of fear of the crazed (largely) men who would be a threat if her whereabouts were known.

It is disgraceful that she is being forced to live this way, as a consequence of speaking up for children and telling the truth. Further horrifying is that police consider this to be an acceptable solution, rather than prosecuting the offenders and providing Cass with adequate protection. Implicit in their indifferentism is the assertion that we should accept the falsehoods that men can be women and that mutilation is appropriate for healthy children, or be confined to our homes, living like a second class.

Hilary is in England, where weapons, from guns to pepper spray, are banned. This creates an environment where a woman in her position is left defenseless against these self-mutilating psychopaths. These are people who would attack her while assuring themselves of their righteousness, just as the same group engages in public acts of degeneracy at Pride parades while considering themselves to be virtuous.

Hilary has a moral right to defend her life, which is a God-given gift, so the British system that deprives her of the means to do so is necessarily repugnant. It places her at the mercy of anyone stronger or more numerous than her. Situations like this make clear the relationship between gun rights and women’s rights. To assert, as some do, that disarmament is the moral course is to elevate the strong above the weak—to create a moral imperative by which the vulnerable must remain so.

If we examine this issue more broadly, then we must consider others in fields like medicine who would like to speak truthfully about what they know and have seen, but cannot do so, for fear that they (and their families) would have to live a life of isolation thereafter—unable to defend themselves if they were found or spotted. Thus, disarmament can have profound societal effects by preventing people from being able to do what is right. We can never know the damage caused by incentivizing people’s silence, nor by forcing people to choose between their families and everyone else.

Laws are just insofar as they are in harmony with natural law; any law precluding the God-given right to self-defense is intrinsically unjust and immoral. Disarmament, better described as the infringement of one’s right to self-defense, is therefore profoundly unjust, and carries societal consequences beyond measure.