Interview by Liz Pendleton, written by Raya Johnson‍

Dr Aidan Kelly, a clinical psychologist and director of transgender healthcare provider Gender Plus, has spoken out about his experience of misrepresentation in the press and the impact it had on his professional reputation. Earlier this year, the Daily Mail published articles accusing Kelly and his colleagues of “doling out” puberty blockers without proper basis, a claim which was completely false.

Kelly, who has specialised in trans healthcare since 2016, explained the reality behind these allegations: “At the NHS GIDS clinic, where I worked at the time, only about 25% of those referred were ever prescribed puberty blockers, according to an audit later included in the 2024 Cass Review. That hardly suggests they were being ‘doled out.’” He emphasised that psychologists do not prescribe medication; decisions about puberty blockers or hormones are made by endocrinologists within a multidisciplinary team. “Our role was to conduct assessments and make recommendations. I couldn’t legally prescribe anything even if I wanted to,” he said.

Kelly described the standard process for under-18s as careful and holistic. “The minimum assessment process is around six months, typically one appointment a month. We assess not just gender but also mental health, neurodiversity, and family or school contexts, taking a physiological and social approach before looking at medical options. For under-18s, family involvement is crucial.”

Medical pathways in the UK start from age 16 with gender-affirming hormones, such as testosterone or oestrogen, which gradually align the body with a young person’s gender identity. “Medical treatment isn’t the only path,” Kelly added. “If a young person can find comfort in non-medical ways, that’s preferable, but we acknowledge that’s not always possible. Our approach is person-centred, nuanced, and never ideological. Medicine can help some, but it doesn’t fix everything.”

The impact of the Daily Mail articles extended beyond professional frustration. Kelly recounted how a member of the public, who he had never treated, lodged a complaint against him with the Health and Care Professions Council, citing the article. “That meant I had a complaint hanging over me for about eight months until it was dismissed. It was stressful and disruptive; the concern wasn’t hypothetical, it was real,” he said.

Kelly also criticised the process with the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), calling it “deeply disappointing.” He said the interactions felt legalistic and unequal, with little opportunity for independent adjudication. “It didn’t feel like a neutral process. It felt almost inevitable that my complaint would be dismissed.”

After IPSO rejected his complaint, Kelly was contacted by the Press Justice Project (PJP), which connected him with solicitors and counsel on a no-win-no-fee basis. Together with another colleague named in the article, he pursued a legal claim, ultimately reaching a successful settlement through mediation in June. “I was very happy with the outcome. It was much more than I thought we’d be able to achieve, and I’d never have been able to do it without PJP,” he said.

Reflecting on the wider implications of such reporting, Kelly warned of the dangers sensationalist articles pose to trans healthcare. “The 2024 Cass Review rightly described this debate as highly polarised, and sensationalist articles fuel that. They simplify, vilify, and mischaracterise people working in an incredibly complex and sensitive field. Ultimately, they make it harder to provide care for vulnerable young people who just want to live their lives like anyone else. Such reporting doesn’t serve trans people, professionals, or even critics of trans healthcare; it just makes the conversation more toxic and obstructs the delivery of care.”

Kelly’s experience highlights the dangers of unchecked press power, where sensationalist rhetoric has the capacity to ruin a long-standing medical career entirely without evidence.

‍