MEP Christine Anderson (ESN), joined by Sebastian Kruis (PfE) and Marieke Ehlers (PfE), has submitted a new parliamentary question demanding that the European Commission clarify its scientific basis for policies referencing 'transgender youth', following what they describe as an evasive reply to an earlier question. The MEPs are pressing the Commission to state whether it accepts, rejects, or partially accepts the conclusions of the UK's Cass Review on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, and to name any alternative systematic reviews or clinical guidelines it considers more authoritative.
The question, tabled on 17 June 2026, follows a previous written question (E-000395/2026) that the Commission answered after more than four months, well beyond the standard deadline. In that reply, the Commission did not address the scientific evidence but instead referred to Member State competences in healthcare and to the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The MEPs argue that the original question was about the scientific evidence underpinning EU policies, not about the division of competences.
first, whether the Commission accepts the Cass Review's conclusions on the lack of evidence for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors; second, if not, which specific systematic reviews or clinical guidelines it considers more authoritative; and third, an explanation for the delayed and evasive reply, and when a direct answer will be provided.
The question signals a push by right-wing MEPs for greater scientific scrutiny of EU policies affecting transgender youth, potentially impacting healthcare guidelines, funding, and non-discrimination frameworks. The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks; its answer will indicate whether it engages with the scientific evidence or maintains its position on Member State competence.