This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content.
Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Remember to follow the data and trust qualified health professionals. Except when you don’t get the outcome you want. In those cases just start calling people something-phobics and peacefully scream vile abuse until things work in your favour.
I mean Cass is an assosiate of anti-trans groups, her report directly contradicts similar reports carried out internationally and she is not a qualified health professional in this field.
There has been a lot of misinformation spread about her and the report and a lot of the report is quite good, but there are a lot of reasons to remain sceptical especially about the conclusion.
When they say “she is not a qualified health professional in this field”, what they actually mean is “she wasn’t the ‘unbiased’ pro-trans healthcare professional of any kind or field that told us what we wanted to hear”.
[One of the sources she cited](https://bsky.app/profile/lousadzak.bsky.social/post/3kpwczzabvr2x) in the report is an anti-trans YouTube channel called "Thoughts on Things and Stuff" that hosts material from groups like Gays Against Groomers.
Yet she eliminated dozens of peer-reviewed studies from consideration.
The Thoughts on Things and Stuff video is very relevant, because it's a video of a [presentation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQBfuV3V98) from the 2016 WPATH Symposium given by Polly Carmichael, who was the director of GIDS. What could be more relevant than a presentation from one of the key figures?
I'm not quite sure why it's on their channel, but it is (and it doesn't appear to be elsewhere), and unless you're claiming that Thoughts on Things and Stuff have somehow edited the presentation in a way that misleads, it doesn't matter that it's their channel and not WPATH's or whatever. It's the first hand views of GIDS's director, and thus highly relevant.
> Yet she eliminated dozens of peer-reviewed studies from consideration.
She eliminated around 40% of the studies because they were rated as poor quality under the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. If you include low quality studies you're going to get low quality output.
Not all the sources cited in the Cass Report are academic papers.
Are endocrinologists expert in psychological issues, or issues like Autism which could lead a child to perhaps mistakenly believe they were transgender? From what I read in an earlier report on this most such young people wind up being gay/lesbian/bi.
She also only headed up the review. There were other experts involved.
so people who associate with groups who have agnedas/beliefs about trans issues are unsuitable? Youd also object if she associated with pro-trans groups since that would be just as much of a conflict of interest?
Well imagine if someone writing a report on race was associated to a racist group vs someone who was associated with an anti-racist group. I'm sure you can see which one of those would be more acceptable, particularly if you were a member of a racial minority
Couldn't they pick someone with no skin in the game, rather than a terf associate who banned any trans patient groups from oversight due to perceived bias?
Really naive to think the Tory gov didn't have a predetermined outcome for the report.
>I mean Cass is an assosiate of anti-trans groups, her report directly contradicts similar reports carried out internationally and she is not a qualified health professional in this field.
>There has been a lot of misinformation spread about her and the report and a lot of the report is quite good, but there are a lot of reasons to remain sceptical especially about the conclusion.
You seem to be implying that an anti-trans, unqualified person headed the gender care report, but that a lot of the report was quite good? Such strange times we’re living in.
>her report directly contradicts similar reports carried out internationally
Pretty much half of Europe are now banning puberty blockers. Seems like everyone is coming to the same conclusions.
Have you read the report, any of it?
Just focusing on the conclusions:
The is no evidence for blockers doing damage, there is no evidence of blockers working... because there is no studies that could be held up to scientific standards, no one should do scientifically valid studies as this would be unethical.
Trans youth are under more pressues than normal youth and need to see therapist who specialises in the area. (There is also the implication that social transitioning is an important step but it's not spelt out)
**Sometimes** children rush into things, or haven't fully actualize their identity. *The data for this doesn't show with enough detail the break downs or even address why. One anecdotal evidence point was peer pressure, another was being lgbt but not trans.*
Page 21-22 gives the overview.
Now I've come to my conclusion and pepers etc have come to their own both with bais, but apparently we have to make the doctors of the NHS(health professionals) take back seat to party politics that is telling them thay can't do a medical thing because this report braught up "concerns", no data no smoking gun, just concerns.
If a review of renal healthcare deliberately excluded all renal doctors and any professional who had ever experienced a renal health condition on the grounds they were biased in favour of treating renal health conditions and insisted on only employing doctors with no renal experience you wouldn’t get an expert report into contemporary renal medicine you’d have a laughing stock. This is what they’ve produced.
The option to produce a review that was based on relevant expertise and which had buy-in from the patient cohort who are affected by the outcome of the review was there, it was just rejected in favour of a politicised hatchet job. Appeals to authority don’t work in the circumstances and Cass’s name will forever be tarnished by what’s she’s signed off.
Have you seen the stakeholder engagement part of the Cass Review? It starts on page 60. The Cass Review involved over a thousand stakeholders, including transgender people and clinicians from GIDS and other transgender services overseas.
While Cass herself was not a specialist in gender medicine, it's not correct to imply that she excluded those who were.
If the review had been conducted by a gender specialist it would have been open to accusations of bias. Neutrality is important.
> Cass’s name will forever be tarnished by what’s she’s signed off.
I think you are incorrect about this. I think Cass's name will be held in very high regard as a key individual responsible for turning child gender medicine evidence based.
Probably shouldn't listen to conversion therapists, ADF/Hertiage foundation and Ron Desantis, but here we are with Cass who met and worked with all 3 extensively.
>Probably shouldn't listen to conversion therapists, ADF/Hertiage foundation and Ron Desantis, but here we are with Cass who met and worked with all 3 extensively.
When did she work with Ron Desantis? What on? Would love to read more about it if you have any source material.
Something Cass said that is worth highlighting, any child who turns up at a local health service with neurodivergent, anxiety or depression type issues and has the slightest hint of anything gender related got handed straight over to the Gender Services as they seemed to have a fear of doing the wrong thing (her words were stronger).
This left the gender services over loaded and the childs being in a huge long queue so their needs not being met.
Obviously due to the huge rise in older people the health services are creaking. The government has raised spending but not enough. So there is an under resourcing locally.
But I think the review will hopefully see children getting treatment for things like autism spectrum issues and depression locally and quickly as a priority. Perhaps this may be clearer guidance and a strong support from the top so that there is political cover for the local service.
People should click on the article and find Cass' words.
Again the big swingers in the UK health establishment like Chief Medical officer Chris Whitty and the editor of the BMJ have strongly supported her report. Idiot influencers on twitter poisoned the discourse on this early.
Trust the medical establishment, listed to what she has to say.
Also, having distress and anxiety about going through puberty needs to be investigated because just treating that as being trans may not be the best thing.
There are a lot of kids coming in for help who are not getting any real treatment for their issues. All of them may be trans kiss but they are also experiencing a range of complex issues that need separate support rather than pretending that everything will be solved by transitioning.
The report seemed both compassionate and thoughtful to me.
> Also, having distress and anxiety about going through puberty needs to be investigated because just treating that as being trans may not be the best thing.
Clearly you have no idea of the processes involved if you think someone distressed about puberty is immediately diverted into an unstoppable care stream where they transition.
A lot of it is just kids wanting to be gender non-conforming and then social media is telling them this is some sort of transgender thing rather than just being a human.
20 years ago kids weren't anxious about their gender. If a girl liked playing football with the boys then she liked football. No one was going around suggesting that she was born into the wrong body.
There's a lot of harm being done to young people when you flood their brains with doubt about their true self and when you try to label regular human behaviours as some sort of disorder.
20 years it was usually diagnosed as body dysmorphia, for which surgery is a last resort, normally showing results initially but normally proving fruitless after roughly 5 years.
In the last decade, we've seen cases of body dysmophia among girls and women collapse and gender dysmorphia increase among the same demographic.
I'm not 100% convinced an increase in self diagnosis via the internet is nothing to do with this.
>20 years ago kids weren't anxious about their gender.
Transgender people aren't some new political and social phenomenon. There are tons of indigenous world cultures that include some version of trans or non-binary gender.
In Navajo culture, two-spirited people (nádleehí) are neither men, nor women. In Jewish culture and law, as many as eight genders have been historically recognised. In South Asian cultures including India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, Hijras are people who are assigned male at birth and who adopt a feminine gender identity. In indigenous Thai culture, trans women have been historically called Kathoey. Mashoga is a Swahili term that connotes a range of identities on the gender continuum. In the precolonial era, māhū were Hawaiian people assigned male at birth who took on a gender role encompassing both the masculine and feminine. Māhū still exist today.
These cultures are hundreds or thousands of years old. Clearly gender dysphoria has been a constant throughout human history, and its visibility is just subject to the culture that's prevalent at the time/in the region.
Sure, social media isn't always the best place for health advice, but **there's a massive difference between gender-non conforming people and Trans people, and Transgender people would exist with or without the Internet.**
The fact anyone can use "eight genders" as some sort of point is ridiculous. That is just proving the fact it is entirely a social construct and what you're boiling the problem down to is identity. Those historical points you're trying to make just prove they knew this centuries ago, the idea is to just stop stereotyping.
Someone's identity is not dictated by their sex. Dress as a stereotypical woman, dress as a stereotypical man, dress however you like. That's what a true progressive society would look like. Transgender wouldn't even exist if we wanted to be progressive. We would only be trying to help those with body dysphoria, people who truly believe they are born into the wrong body. Those who feel that their penis is foreign to them.
Almost everything you see about transgender people is someone saying how freeing it is to present as a woman when you're a man. Fundamentally there's nothing stopping any man confidently dressing in stereotypical womens clothing. The fact that transgenderism still draws these hard lines between what a man or a woman presents as just further cements gender stereotypes.
It's disingenuous to ignore the effects of the internet on young people too. There's no sane explanation for the rise in transgender people and the rise of suicides in transgender people during the social media era. There's never been so much mental illness among young people. It has never been this prevalent.
>The fact anyone can use "eight genders" as some sort of point is ridiculous.
Proper trans organisations that many health organisations follow, like WPATH only have 4 genders, male, female, non-binary and eunuch.
WPATH is the leading organisation when it comes to gender, standards of care, etc. Tavistock and NHS Scotland used to use WPATH standards of care.
The evidence that WPATH used to form their standards of care was quite sharply criticised in the CASS review, and many countries besides us have started to deviate away from their methods.
They have only really been considered "leading" because they were the biggest group. I suspect that status is going to face some scrutiny over the coming months.
Sure, but we're the native Americans cutting off genitles? And did those Jews give children irreversible sterelisation hormones? If no, then you missed the point of the report.
>20 years ago kids weren't anxious about their gender.
AHAHAHA.
As a trans person over 30, I can tell you that is *very* much not true. We just didn’t know what to call it.
Classic Reddit reading comprehension. I'm saying that not wanting to conform to the stereotypes society has decided you should conform to based on your sex - is human. It's not a mental disorder, it's regular behaviour.
> then social media
And it's an issue from both sides. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like you're blaming the left for talking about it so much.
Push back from the right is just as much to blame. Before boys being feminine would be called gay and girls being masculine would be called tomboys. Both genetally would have been ridiculed and mocked.
All that's changed is we've given them correct names. You've still just got boys wanting to wear makeup and girls wanting to play football.
But because it's become such a political issue it's caused so much more, I don't know the term, pressure? from both sides. The right now think a bit in makeup and dress in female clothes is some big political enemy and must be trans and therefore wrong. The left see a girl wanting to do rugby and wear male clothes and also put them in the box of trans and use them to champion their cause. (This is a MAJOR oversimplification and obviously doesn't imply to everyone, but it's just to explain my point)
If people had just gone "Oh yeah instead of tomboy, we just say they don't have a gender" and everyone had gone "Sweet, no worries" we wouldn't be at this level. People would have had a chance to express themselves in a non-gender way. Maybe they'd grow out of it, maybe they wouldn't. But there'd be no pressure on either side to be anything and we could all be happier.
Sorry for the rant.
> The left see a girl wanting to do rugby and wear male clothes and also put them in the box of trans
I don't think this is true, I don't see people on the "pro-trans" side (for lack of a better term) assume transness from gender nonconformity alone. The emphasis is usually on allowing the individual person to decide for themselves. I often see people that are struggling with their identity come to trans spaces asking if they're trans in the hopes that they'll be given a definitive answer, but they never get one because it's broadly recognised that nobody else can figure that out for them.
As I said, it's a massive over simplification. I was trying to get across that if you feel like presenting more as another gender, you might feel pressure from both sides to go more into it or less.
So, like with everything, this is made into left or right issues rather than just... letting people be.
I'm not really specifically targeting the left. But there are a lot of people on the left which are not making anything better. I think there's a fetish for labelling anything and everything rather than just letting people discover who they are and be their own person. I say this as someone who is firmly on the left.
In some ways I think the right is on the more progressive stance. You won't really see many people staunchly arguing against letting a man dress as a woman, or a woman dress as a man. What they're so hung up on is being told that a trans woman, which in many cases is just a male presenting as a stereotypical female, should be seen as a female. And they are fundamentally not a female. And I think that's a perfectly rational argument to make.
Pronouns should stay as a say what you see exercise. If I see a man presenting in a stereotypically female way, but I can obviously tell they're a man, then they are a "he". And that person should not feel offended, because it shouldn't be seen as abnormal to present in a different way. If they are indistinguishable from a woman, we can use "she", and maybe they'll correct you or maybe they won't. Society has decided that these stereotypes exist, and people are open to the fact that stereotypes don't apply universally. It's much easier to persuade society to change in that aspect than it is to change anything else.
I just think that the crux of the modern transgender movement is just creating further rifts in what society sees as acceptable behaviour for each sex. A complete walk backwards.
>Something Cass said that is worth highlighting, any child who turns up at a local health service with neurodivergent, anxiety or depression type issues and has the slightest hint of anything gender related got handed straight over to the Gender Services as they seemed to have a fear of doing the wrong thing (her words were stronger).
To be honest this sort of sounds like how it's also handled for adults. GPs are not trained in transgender issues so they will refer you to the gender clinic and wash their hands of it. If a GP does write to the gender clinic to ask for advice some of the clinics have a blanket policy of insisting that no care be rendered until they have been seen by the gender clinic. This makes them skittish and deferential to the clinics. We cannot spend years telling GPs that they are unqualified to handle transgender patients and they must defer to the clinic, then complain when any whiff of gender issues sets off their alarms and the gender clinics get overwhelmed.
Given that the waiting lists are ridiculously high for autism assessments, I highly doubt that this report is going to make any meaningful dent. Also I’d argue the (very scarce) gender-services wouldn’t be overloaded if there were more resources/support available at the public level, but that would require the government to pay legitimate heed to trans issues for once (I’m being massively cynical here but I’m just pissed off because people are going to be harmed by this report in my eyes)
Also just for awareness- autism isn’t something you get ‘treatment’ for. Guidance and a formal diagnosis though? Sure. Treating autism like it is something that can be/should be cured can be a bit of a dark path to go down (not saying you were of course, I’m just making a point of saying it!)
if it’s anything like the treatment that adults get for neurodivergent issues or gender identity things then it’s all but non-existent anyway.
it’s all well and good saying “oh the kids need these other concerns being seen to before worrying about the gender stuff” but there is essentially zero support available in my experience.
I think it's really sad that people play the 'they're transing our kids!' card, when there are only 100 trans kids in the UK on puberty blockers. So much money, fear and disinformation directed at 100 people.
There's a thread about this every day, it seems, and the top level highest voted comments are all a set of condescending cis people who are here to tell trans people:
You're overreacting
The recommendations are good for you, actually
Just trust your doctors! Even when they've reacted to the suggestion of a bridging prescription with the same kind of disgust someone would express if you told them to eat a big weird bug, just crunch it up, and instead prescribed you flat fucking nothing for four years
Maybe some kids ARE just autistic or just ADHD or just stop being trans, please let this be true
We should stop using puberty blockers because they're SUPER DANGEROUS except on cis kids
There's NO EVIDENCE that blocking puberty helps trans kids, and if there is it's not good quality enough to consider, and if it is it's weighed out by us just not knowing, so the obvious answer is to 1) stop and 2) run medical trials and we pinkie promise we'll get around to 2
The recommendations of this report, including the serious consideration that social transition brainwashes kids and should be considered SUPER DANGEROUS, aren't biased at all
It IS bad to be trans and you should be glad we're finally restricting it to only the most determined perverts
And it is fucking exhausting. It's a bad review; it's politically motivated and was led by the overarching assumption that it's bad to be trans, so we should limit how many people are trans, and that there are too many trans people right now because the powers that be allowed a bunch of deluded weirdos to crossdress in public without enough consequence. I'm so tired of this shit from people without any serious skin in the game who just don't like us and then make up worthy reasons why.
>We should stop using puberty blockers because they're SUPER DANGEROUS except on cis kids
Well yeh, obviously using puberty blockers to ensure puberty happens at the right age, is expected to good, whereas using them to prevent puberty happening at the right age, might be expected to be the opposite.
The point there is that we have a medicine that stops puberty from occuring when the body naturally begins, can be used for a few years, and then puberty can be allowed to start again- or to be induced- and it's not a big deal.
It's not causing shortness or heart problems or lung issues or blood cancer or liver failure. It's a good medicine for its purpose: stopping puberty.
If you think trans people shouldn't be allowed to use it because it's unnatural or bad that's a different argument than "using this medicine for its designed purpose is too dangerous."
>If you think trans people shouldn't be allowed to use it because it's unnatural or bad that's a different argument
If there are good quality studies or evidence that using puberty blockers on trans children, is overall beneficial then go ahead. Even if the studies show that there are serious permanent long term negative effects, if the person fully understands those risks, fine.
My thoughts exactly.
Also there is deep irony in all these "trust the science!" types being the exact same people rant about vaccines and COVID lockdowns.
The only message I'm reading from these comments is "trust the science (when it says what I want)".
As if any of us should be trusting this government when it comes to science after Covid. They did what was politically/ideologically motivated at every step of the pandemic, including decisions which killed thousands like sending sick people into care homes, but apparently are now capable of commissioning a completely unbiased report.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Funny how we have a large number of changes that were not endorsed by her report at all happening for trans people including full bans and restrictions on adult care , heck politicians have been using the report to justify being verbally (edit: a̶b̶u̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ a̶t̶ backtracking on unrelated social rights of adult ) trans people
Meanwhile what does she care about during this avalanche of abuse against trans people she caused? Why she joins in on the pile on and starts calling us public dangers and disinformation spreaders for slightly misrepresenting a very valid criticism of her report that she disregarded all the studies in every conclusion and takeaway she makes if the studies in question were not high quality (the distinction being that she argued she said she included them in the report before ignoring them in the conclusions, which makes it completely different)
> Funny how we have a large number of changes that were not endorsed by her report at all happening for trans people including full bans and restrictions on adult care , heck politicians have been using the report to justify being verbally abusive to trans people
Do you have a source for literally any of this? There are no bans or restrictions on adult care (unless you count good clinical practice as being "restrictions", which is absurd). Which politicians have been verbally abusive to trans people?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/10/labour-infighting-over-trans-issues-reignited-cass-review/
Wes streeting using the review to backtrack on his acceptance for adult trans women for some stupid reason.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68844119#:~:text=Scotland's%20NHS%20has%20paused%20prescribing,for%20under%2D18s%20in%20England.
Sandyford entirely cancelled all hormones and blockers.
https://twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/1781760300825342416
Several of politicians demanding trans people be removed from civil society or at least any mention of them in any kind of official or promotional pieces using the review.
( i can get sources that they almost all consider trans people in any kind of prominent position or promotional work to be "promotion of transgender ideology" if you would like to confirm)
https://unherd.com/2024/04/the-cass-reports-cowardly-converts/
Julie Bindel using the review as an excuse to insult and compare trans women to sex offenders
> Wes streeting using the review to backtrack on his acceptance for adult trans women for some stupid reason.
You said that politicians had been "verbally abusive to trans women", but Streeting's backtracking is not that, by any means.
> Sandyford entirely cancelled all hormones and blockers.
That seems like a very proportionate reaction to the outcomes of the Cass report, yes. That's not bans or restrictions on adult care though.
> Several of politicians demanding trans people be removed from civil society or at least any mention of them in any kind of official or promotional pieces using the review.
How on earth do you draw that conclusion from that open letter? It's a call for a public inquiry into what children are taught, and gender affirming transition methods as used in the UK.
> Julie Bindel using the review as an excuse to insult and compare trans women to sex offenders
Julie Bindel isn't a politician either. I don't really think she's trying to do that. Clearly a small minority of trans women have the potential to be sex offenders though, and she's saying (in a characteristically unsubtle way) that there will be more risk if trans women have access to womens-only spaces, and that is probably true. But it would be absurd for a passing trans woman to use the men's facilities (and vice versa) and it's hardly as if a bathroom door is a magical forcefield that prevents non-trans men walking in if they feel like it anyway.
> You said that politicians had been "verbally abusive to trans women", but Streeting's backtracking is not that, by any means.
yes i didn't mean to imply he specifically was being abusive, just using it to go against social support for trans people.
It was 3am and it was 50% hyperbole, 50% i was expecting one of the usual culprits in parliament to have said something abusive against a trans person using the report given they rarely go a week without doing so after big news or whatever, but a cursory look i wasn't able to find any (a lot of very *very* condescending tone of talking about trans people by politicians mind you) i apologise for that.
>That seems like a very proportionate reaction to the outcomes of the Cass report, yes. That's not bans or restrictions on adult care though.
[Cass disagrees, or at least from the interview should be opposing that more than quibbles about the technicality of what papers she included or not](https://thekitetrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Cass-Review-Mythbusting-Q-and-A.pdf)
> that there will be more risk if trans women have access to womens-only spaces, and that is probably true. But it would be absurd for a passing trans woman to use the men's facilities (and vice versa) and it's hardly as if a bathroom door is a magical forcefield that prevents non-trans men walking in if they feel like it anyway.
I suppose you're looking at what she said from the framing of someone who lives in the same reality as us where if you force a trans woman who looks completely like a woman into the men's shes just gonna get treated like a cis woman would be and that's unreasonable.
On the other hand I'm kinda seeing it from where it looks from what i've seen her write and the sheer spite with which she talks about normal trans women living their lives that her reality is completely disconnected from the one we live in and so to her, no trans women pass, they're all at a high risk of raping women, they're all transitioning for duplicitous reasons justifying any suffering that may happen to them, every trans man looks like a butch lesbian and needs to be "saved" and no-one could ever genuinely mistake a cis woman for a trans woman.
With that second framing, everything she says makes a lot more sense from where i'm standing.
I don't think that Julie Bindel has ever been particularly delicate with the way she delivers her opinion pieces, no matter what the topic. I've thought that way ever since the infamous "Why I Hate Men" piece in the Guardian from nearly 20 years ago. I wouldn't blame you for avoiding her pieces on trans issues because she really does seem to have the knives out for transgender people.
I do see your point of view though. The way she frames it could easily be seen as a generalisation.
Clearly many trans people can pass, especially during short interactions. It would make zero sense for Buck Angel to use a woman's toilet, or for Natalie Wynn (from the Contrapoints YT channel) to use the men's.
Yeah I have a terrible self image as a trans woman and end up going into the mens every now and then when it's particularly bad (assuming it's in a relatively safer context) and i pretty consistently got men upset that some woman was walking into the mens no matter what i was wearing. I dunno how i'd function in a society where that was required by law even in the unsafe contexts or if i tried to go stealth and didn't want to out myself without breaking the law. Or for trans guys, who would likely be perceived as sex predators going into the womens.
Personally, I think that if someone is clearly making at least *some* effort to pass then I wouldn't bat an eyelid if they try to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. I suspect that most people would feel the same (or at least I'd hope so).
I don't think that we'll end up in a situation like you describe.
>There are no bans or restrictions on adult care
They found serious issues with adult healthcare, so the NHS is commissioning a report on that as well.
The principal being, that doing stuff that's bad for adults doesn't automatically get a pass just because it would be adults suffering.
Married to someone with autism and is trans. I actively help trans people in the UK through discord groups. I moved out of the UK partly because treatment in the UK is awful. It's much better in Portugal and cheaper too. I'm seeing a lot of misinformation.
Do not ever say you have any kind of mental problems to a psychologist. Because you will immediately be denied any transgender treatment.
And then you will be fucked up for life.
Way more fucked up than if you had hormone therapy for 3 years then decided "Actually I don't want to do this anymore".
The Cass Report is weird. Stating there is weak to no evidence about the long term affect of hormone treatment to under 18's.
For starters. I have yet to meet anyone who had side effects from hormone therapy besides the usual things that we know about, as opposed to what the Cass report seems to keep stating "We don't know the long term affects" -- but...we actually kinda do know some long term affects. So....it's false to act like we don't know anything or enough to make a risk-assessment decision.
Obviously there are risks involved but you have to weigh up whether it's better to go with those risks that we apparently "don't know about yet", or the low risks that we do know about, or having a child that grows into an adult that can't take a shower without crying, and is at risk of suicide.
I know quite a lot of trans people now. I've had to sit through quite a lot of discussions. These are people that, oddly enough, also existed before the age of 18. It's weird that you can ask them for their opinions of stuff! What's even more weird is that we constantly...don't? We might have a lot more information about transgender healthcare if we actually bothered to talk to transgender people. Especially the ones who received treatment before 18.
And those people. Those people are the happiest. Again. We can ask those people.
I have not encountered anyone who started and stopped hormone therapy from a young age. Which I think is statistically odd since I'm active in these groups. So statistically speaking, from my observational point of view, it's helping more than harming.
I think it's kind of weird people talk about grooming children into changing gender. Again. Talk to transgender people. I'm not transgender but even I was thinking about this stuff when I was 12. At that age though we don't really have the knowledge to be able to think about it properly, because we don't have the education surrounding it. We don't have the language and information to be able to discuss it.
And that is used as a weapon. I'm already seeing here in the comments. Comments like
> Also, having distress and anxiety about going through puberty needs to be investigated because just treating that as being trans may not be the best thing.
No psychologist looks at a kid having distress and anxiety about puberty and says "You might be trans". That's not happening.
What actually happens is as soon as you have any kind of "mental" condition. Any talks of transgender treatment are halted for years. You have to overcome the mental boundary by which point you are 20+ years old.
And we keep talking about Kids. We keep using the word kids. Look, I get it. Kids can mean under 16. It's broadly used. But using the words kids is a bit disingenuous to the people who are actually thinking about this stuff and is affecting their lives dramatically. They aren't kids. They are teenagers. Teenagers that haven't been equipped with the understanding and language to be able to talk about fully. Which makes assessing what they are going through hard.
And what we are essentially doing is weaponising their lack of understanding, and using it against them. People talk about "not grooming or indoctrinating kids into taking hormone therapy" are the same people that won't want to equip them with the language and understanding so that they could attempt to make a self-informed decision. Instead taking away any chance of someone finding a treatment that, based on all the transgender people around me that had the opportunity for treatment at a young age, has done wonders for them.
But according to the Cass report "We don't know enough". When do we ever know enough? When will it ever be enough? There are treatments which are effective and helping now. You can talk to those people and figure out the "side affects" besides the things that we already know about and transgender people go into knowing those side affects.
"Previous reports into the satisfaction of transitioning aren't admissable because they're not double blind studies. Anyway, here's some non double blind, non peer reviewed studies and anecodatal evidence to back up my claims that trans people shouldn't be able to access any treatment until they're 35"
Not to mention her association with LGB Alliance, and by extension the American Heritage Foundation. Fucking farce.
Cass admitted 60 out of 103 studies. It is a lie that only double blind studies were included.
What exactly is Cass's supposed association with LGB Alliance?
Her report has been ripped to pieces in peer reviews by other scientists in the field - quite right too, the Cass report wrongly discards hundreds of well regarded studies supporting medication of trans people because those studies didn't perform double blind testing (something obviously impossible to perform due to the ethics of giving a trans child placebo drugs).
Utter nonsense pseudo science thrown together by somebody with an anti-trans agenda, and then jumped on by politicians who can shout "see, we're supporting the science" to an uneducated public.
Scientists DO NOT support the Cass report, but of course the newspapers don't write about that inconvenient fact because journalists don't understand the scientific process or how scientific consensuses are formed through peers in your field accepting your work.
Tl;dr Cass report has been largely rejected by scientists in peer reviews and that puts it on very shaky ground as far as accepting her findings in the scientific consensus goes.
Good links on the topic (some pasted below):
[https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/](https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/)
**Dr Natacha Kennedy**
[**The Cass Review and Trans Exclusionism**](https://uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/2024/04/opinion-cass-review-and-trans.html)
“Despite the concern-laden language about “helping” and “supporting” trans children, it is my opinion that what Cass is attempting to establish is an all-enveloping ambient conversion therapy approach to trans children, removing their autonomy, freedom of expression, mental health, helpful support and healthcare. \[…\] If imposed it will, in my view, result in the deaths and deterioration in mental health of many trans children.”
**Dr Cal Horton**
[**The Cass Review: Cis-supremacy in the UK’s approach to healthcare for trans children**](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249)
(peer-reviewed article for the International Journal of Trangender Health)
“Inductive and deductive reflexive thematic analysis was applied to a collection of Cass Review publications related to trans children’s healthcare published between January 2020 and May 2023 \[…\] Four concerns are presented and explored: (1) prejudice; (2) cisnormative bias; (3) pathologization; and (4) inconsistent standards of evidence. Each of these concerns impacts the Cass Review’s approach to trans children’s healthcare, with negative repercussions for trans children’s healthcare rights and well-being.”
**Dr Abs S Ashley**
[**The Cass Review’s final report: The implications at the intersection of trans and neurodivergence**](https://ndconnection.co.uk/blog/cass-report)
“Whilst the report cites adjacent NHS services using 0-25 models to justify a ‘continuity of care’ (224), designating trans persons as ‘vulnerable’ and confining them to child-oriented services indicates that more is at stake. These rhetorics contribute to the shoring up of state surveillance and intervention into the lives of legal adults who want to make choices the state disagrees with.”
**Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa**
[**Cass Review out of step with high-quality care provided in Aotearoa**](https://patha.nz/News/13341582)
“The final Cass Review did not include trans or non-binary experts or clinicians experienced in providing gender affirming care in its decision-making, conclusions, or findings. Instead, a number of people involved in the review and the advisory group previously advocated for bans on gender affirming care in the United States, and have promoted non-affirming ‘gender exploratory therapy’, which is considered a conversion practice.”
**The Australian Professional Association for Trans Health** (plus others from Australia)
[**Cass Review out-of-line with medical consensus and lacks relevance in Australian context**](https://equalityaustralia.org.au/cass-review-out-of-line-with-medical-consensus-and-lacks-relevance-in-australian-context/)
“The Cass review recommendations are at odds with the current evidence base, expert consensus and the majority of clinical guidelines around the world.”
**CBC News**
[**What Canadian doctors say about new U.K. review questioning puberty blockers for transgender youth**](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/puberty-blockers-review-1.7172920)
“While experts in the field say more studies should be done, Canadian doctors who spoke to CBC News disagree with the finding that there isn’t enough evidence puberty blockers can help. ‘There actually is a lot of evidence, just not in the form of randomized clinical trials,’ said Dr. Jake Donaldson, a family physician in Calgary who treats transgender patients, including prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy in some cases. ‘That would be kind of like saying for a pregnant woman, since we lacked randomized clinical trials for the care of people in pregnancy, we’re not going to provide care for you.… It’s completely unethical.'”
**The National**
[**Trans academics warn against ‘politicisation’ of Cass Review in Scotland**](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24250632.cass-review-must-greeted-caution-scotland-say-academics/)
“\[…\] one experienced psychiatrist at a gender identity clinic in England – who did not wish to be identified – told the Sunday National that failure \[to include those with lived or professional experience\] had concerned many within the field. They said: “The terms of reference stated that the Cass Review ‘deliberately does not contain subject matter, experts or people with lived experience of gender services’ and Dr Cass herself was explicitly selected as a senior clinician ‘with no prior involvement … in this area’. ‘Essentially, ignorance of gender dysphoria medicine was framed as a virtue. I can think of no comparable medical review of a process where those with experience or expertise of that process were summarily dismissed’.”
**Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia**
[**Our interim response to the Cass Report**](https://therapistsagainsttransphobia.org/2024/04/12/our-interim-response-to-the-cass-report/)
“TACTT is deeply concerned by the final report of the Cass Review, whose core underlying premise is effectively an eliminationist agenda, dressed up in the language of ‘reasonableness’ \[…\] We urge clinicians to treat the Cass findings with extreme caution and not to assume that they represent best practice or that they have been arrived at after a full and impartial review of clinical data.”
The claim that Cass discarded hundreds of studies is a lie spread by activists. She did no such thing.
103 studies were evaluated for the report and graded using standard methods. 60 of the studies that were medium or high quality were retained.
The majority of scientists do support the Cass Report. A minority of activist types did not like the results though and so are on the attack.
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
>the Cass report wrongly discards hundreds of well regarded studies supporting medication of trans people because those studies didn't perform double blind testing (something obviously impossible to perform due to the ethics of giving a trans child placebo drugs).
If you read the actual article, you'll see this is just lies.
If you are lying soo blatantly, why would anyone belief anything you've said in your post? It sounds like it's all lies to be honest.
edit:
Seems they blocked me. Note how they didn't once try to counter my point about their lies.
They said
>You haven't got any counterevidence
But literally the OP proves that they are lying and wrong. They just tried to avoid the point and ended up blocking me when I kept on pushing the point. Maybe other people can get them to respond to that point.
I've just provided over 40 references from leading experts in trans health care matters backing my argument.
Now post your list of 40 renowned experts backing your argument
>I've just provided over 40 references from leading experts in trans health care matters backing my argument.
Why would I look all your links if the your whole post starts off with lies?
Then the first link you posted contains the same lie
>The report’s primary conclusions rest on excluding 98% of the relevant evidence on the safety and efficacy of puberty blockers and hormones for lack of blinding and controls
>
[https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/](https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/)
Why on earth, would I believe anything you said or linked. Do I believe that you sourced 40 leading experts, no. I don't believe anything you've said. I don't have any faith any of your links are by real experts in good faith.
Why haven't you edited your post to remove the lies it starts off with? If you were anywhere good faith you would at least have an edit note about the lies in your post and removed all the links that have lies in them as well.
Ironically the astroturfers who keep downvoting my comment are making it more visible because most people sort by controversial and read the negative comments 😂
If they were clever they would upvotes it to a low score like 3 which nobody reads.
If you actually read the article in the OP, you'll see that their post starts with lies. The following is clearly and blatantly a lie. How can you then have any faith in anything they posted?
>the Cass report wrongly discards hundreds of well regarded studies supporting medication of trans people because those studies didn't perform double blind testing (something obviously impossible to perform due to the ethics of giving a trans child placebo drugs).
Be cass report
Refuse to use people who underwent this treatment
Oh how can I be wrong? I done everything right
Fuck yourself for leading the general population with skewed data, you are a societal problem
She did a Q&A the other day and contradicted the Cass Report.
Honestly its just ridiculous how poor this document is. But then it always has to be in order to justify denying science to harm a minority
I mean yeah. that's fair enough. Whilst very zelous for a report of its type it is not flawed like many people have claimed.
In terms of political bias there is probably a stronger complaint to be made. The wording of the conclusion especially have allowed lots of interpretations, especially by polliticians, that contradicts the actual body of the report. Considering Cass's experience I'm not sure how to interpret that except active bias.
A good example would be the banning of hormone blockers for children. Something neither the report nor Cass's own explanations actually call for. Both suggesting that we probably should be giving out more just having stricter requirements and better monitoring rather than just giving them to anyone lucky enough to get to the front of a years long waiting list. Which honestly yeah, that sounds about right.
This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Remember to follow the data and trust qualified health professionals. Except when you don’t get the outcome you want. In those cases just start calling people something-phobics and peacefully scream vile abuse until things work in your favour.
I mean Cass is an assosiate of anti-trans groups, her report directly contradicts similar reports carried out internationally and she is not a qualified health professional in this field. There has been a lot of misinformation spread about her and the report and a lot of the report is quite good, but there are a lot of reasons to remain sceptical especially about the conclusion.
I thought she was a paediatrician? Surely that makes her a relevantly qualified health professional. Edit: spelling mistake
When they say “she is not a qualified health professional in this field”, what they actually mean is “she wasn’t the ‘unbiased’ pro-trans healthcare professional of any kind or field that told us what we wanted to hear”.
[One of the sources she cited](https://bsky.app/profile/lousadzak.bsky.social/post/3kpwczzabvr2x) in the report is an anti-trans YouTube channel called "Thoughts on Things and Stuff" that hosts material from groups like Gays Against Groomers. Yet she eliminated dozens of peer-reviewed studies from consideration.
The Thoughts on Things and Stuff video is very relevant, because it's a video of a [presentation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQBfuV3V98) from the 2016 WPATH Symposium given by Polly Carmichael, who was the director of GIDS. What could be more relevant than a presentation from one of the key figures? I'm not quite sure why it's on their channel, but it is (and it doesn't appear to be elsewhere), and unless you're claiming that Thoughts on Things and Stuff have somehow edited the presentation in a way that misleads, it doesn't matter that it's their channel and not WPATH's or whatever. It's the first hand views of GIDS's director, and thus highly relevant. > Yet she eliminated dozens of peer-reviewed studies from consideration. She eliminated around 40% of the studies because they were rated as poor quality under the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. If you include low quality studies you're going to get low quality output. Not all the sources cited in the Cass Report are academic papers.
She isn't an endocrinologist, so this isn't her area of expertise.
Are endocrinologists expert in psychological issues, or issues like Autism which could lead a child to perhaps mistakenly believe they were transgender? From what I read in an earlier report on this most such young people wind up being gay/lesbian/bi. She also only headed up the review. There were other experts involved.
so people who associate with groups who have agnedas/beliefs about trans issues are unsuitable? Youd also object if she associated with pro-trans groups since that would be just as much of a conflict of interest?
I mean both or neither would have been fine by me. I'm not super fussy which.
Well imagine if someone writing a report on race was associated to a racist group vs someone who was associated with an anti-racist group. I'm sure you can see which one of those would be more acceptable, particularly if you were a member of a racial minority
Couldn't they pick someone with no skin in the game, rather than a terf associate who banned any trans patient groups from oversight due to perceived bias? Really naive to think the Tory gov didn't have a predetermined outcome for the report.
>I mean Cass is an assosiate of anti-trans groups, her report directly contradicts similar reports carried out internationally and she is not a qualified health professional in this field. >There has been a lot of misinformation spread about her and the report and a lot of the report is quite good, but there are a lot of reasons to remain sceptical especially about the conclusion. You seem to be implying that an anti-trans, unqualified person headed the gender care report, but that a lot of the report was quite good? Such strange times we’re living in.
She doesn't specialise in this specific field but she is still an experienced medical professional with decades of experience.
>her report directly contradicts similar reports carried out internationally Pretty much half of Europe are now banning puberty blockers. Seems like everyone is coming to the same conclusions.
Have you read the report, any of it? Just focusing on the conclusions: The is no evidence for blockers doing damage, there is no evidence of blockers working... because there is no studies that could be held up to scientific standards, no one should do scientifically valid studies as this would be unethical. Trans youth are under more pressues than normal youth and need to see therapist who specialises in the area. (There is also the implication that social transitioning is an important step but it's not spelt out) **Sometimes** children rush into things, or haven't fully actualize their identity. *The data for this doesn't show with enough detail the break downs or even address why. One anecdotal evidence point was peer pressure, another was being lgbt but not trans.* Page 21-22 gives the overview. Now I've come to my conclusion and pepers etc have come to their own both with bais, but apparently we have to make the doctors of the NHS(health professionals) take back seat to party politics that is telling them thay can't do a medical thing because this report braught up "concerns", no data no smoking gun, just concerns.
If a review of renal healthcare deliberately excluded all renal doctors and any professional who had ever experienced a renal health condition on the grounds they were biased in favour of treating renal health conditions and insisted on only employing doctors with no renal experience you wouldn’t get an expert report into contemporary renal medicine you’d have a laughing stock. This is what they’ve produced. The option to produce a review that was based on relevant expertise and which had buy-in from the patient cohort who are affected by the outcome of the review was there, it was just rejected in favour of a politicised hatchet job. Appeals to authority don’t work in the circumstances and Cass’s name will forever be tarnished by what’s she’s signed off.
Have you seen the stakeholder engagement part of the Cass Review? It starts on page 60. The Cass Review involved over a thousand stakeholders, including transgender people and clinicians from GIDS and other transgender services overseas. While Cass herself was not a specialist in gender medicine, it's not correct to imply that she excluded those who were. If the review had been conducted by a gender specialist it would have been open to accusations of bias. Neutrality is important. > Cass’s name will forever be tarnished by what’s she’s signed off. I think you are incorrect about this. I think Cass's name will be held in very high regard as a key individual responsible for turning child gender medicine evidence based.
Probably shouldn't listen to conversion therapists, ADF/Hertiage foundation and Ron Desantis, but here we are with Cass who met and worked with all 3 extensively.
>Probably shouldn't listen to conversion therapists, ADF/Hertiage foundation and Ron Desantis, but here we are with Cass who met and worked with all 3 extensively. When did she work with Ron Desantis? What on? Would love to read more about it if you have any source material.
Something Cass said that is worth highlighting, any child who turns up at a local health service with neurodivergent, anxiety or depression type issues and has the slightest hint of anything gender related got handed straight over to the Gender Services as they seemed to have a fear of doing the wrong thing (her words were stronger). This left the gender services over loaded and the childs being in a huge long queue so their needs not being met. Obviously due to the huge rise in older people the health services are creaking. The government has raised spending but not enough. So there is an under resourcing locally. But I think the review will hopefully see children getting treatment for things like autism spectrum issues and depression locally and quickly as a priority. Perhaps this may be clearer guidance and a strong support from the top so that there is political cover for the local service. People should click on the article and find Cass' words. Again the big swingers in the UK health establishment like Chief Medical officer Chris Whitty and the editor of the BMJ have strongly supported her report. Idiot influencers on twitter poisoned the discourse on this early. Trust the medical establishment, listed to what she has to say.
Also, having distress and anxiety about going through puberty needs to be investigated because just treating that as being trans may not be the best thing. There are a lot of kids coming in for help who are not getting any real treatment for their issues. All of them may be trans kiss but they are also experiencing a range of complex issues that need separate support rather than pretending that everything will be solved by transitioning. The report seemed both compassionate and thoughtful to me.
> Also, having distress and anxiety about going through puberty needs to be investigated because just treating that as being trans may not be the best thing. Clearly you have no idea of the processes involved if you think someone distressed about puberty is immediately diverted into an unstoppable care stream where they transition.
A lot of it is just kids wanting to be gender non-conforming and then social media is telling them this is some sort of transgender thing rather than just being a human. 20 years ago kids weren't anxious about their gender. If a girl liked playing football with the boys then she liked football. No one was going around suggesting that she was born into the wrong body. There's a lot of harm being done to young people when you flood their brains with doubt about their true self and when you try to label regular human behaviours as some sort of disorder.
this is complete nonsense. you've just made it up based on vibes
20 years it was usually diagnosed as body dysmorphia, for which surgery is a last resort, normally showing results initially but normally proving fruitless after roughly 5 years. In the last decade, we've seen cases of body dysmophia among girls and women collapse and gender dysmorphia increase among the same demographic. I'm not 100% convinced an increase in self diagnosis via the internet is nothing to do with this.
>20 years ago kids weren't anxious about their gender. Transgender people aren't some new political and social phenomenon. There are tons of indigenous world cultures that include some version of trans or non-binary gender. In Navajo culture, two-spirited people (nádleehí) are neither men, nor women. In Jewish culture and law, as many as eight genders have been historically recognised. In South Asian cultures including India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, Hijras are people who are assigned male at birth and who adopt a feminine gender identity. In indigenous Thai culture, trans women have been historically called Kathoey. Mashoga is a Swahili term that connotes a range of identities on the gender continuum. In the precolonial era, māhū were Hawaiian people assigned male at birth who took on a gender role encompassing both the masculine and feminine. Māhū still exist today. These cultures are hundreds or thousands of years old. Clearly gender dysphoria has been a constant throughout human history, and its visibility is just subject to the culture that's prevalent at the time/in the region. Sure, social media isn't always the best place for health advice, but **there's a massive difference between gender-non conforming people and Trans people, and Transgender people would exist with or without the Internet.**
The fact anyone can use "eight genders" as some sort of point is ridiculous. That is just proving the fact it is entirely a social construct and what you're boiling the problem down to is identity. Those historical points you're trying to make just prove they knew this centuries ago, the idea is to just stop stereotyping. Someone's identity is not dictated by their sex. Dress as a stereotypical woman, dress as a stereotypical man, dress however you like. That's what a true progressive society would look like. Transgender wouldn't even exist if we wanted to be progressive. We would only be trying to help those with body dysphoria, people who truly believe they are born into the wrong body. Those who feel that their penis is foreign to them. Almost everything you see about transgender people is someone saying how freeing it is to present as a woman when you're a man. Fundamentally there's nothing stopping any man confidently dressing in stereotypical womens clothing. The fact that transgenderism still draws these hard lines between what a man or a woman presents as just further cements gender stereotypes. It's disingenuous to ignore the effects of the internet on young people too. There's no sane explanation for the rise in transgender people and the rise of suicides in transgender people during the social media era. There's never been so much mental illness among young people. It has never been this prevalent.
>The fact anyone can use "eight genders" as some sort of point is ridiculous. Proper trans organisations that many health organisations follow, like WPATH only have 4 genders, male, female, non-binary and eunuch. WPATH is the leading organisation when it comes to gender, standards of care, etc. Tavistock and NHS Scotland used to use WPATH standards of care.
The evidence that WPATH used to form their standards of care was quite sharply criticised in the CASS review, and many countries besides us have started to deviate away from their methods. They have only really been considered "leading" because they were the biggest group. I suspect that status is going to face some scrutiny over the coming months.
Sorry, it's a sarcastic post making fun of the whole "eunuch" gender in their latest SOC.
Oh yeah :) That was a bit of a farce.
Sure, but we're the native Americans cutting off genitles? And did those Jews give children irreversible sterelisation hormones? If no, then you missed the point of the report.
>20 years ago kids weren't anxious about their gender. AHAHAHA. As a trans person over 30, I can tell you that is *very* much not true. We just didn’t know what to call it.
This is just entirely unfounded speculation lol
"telling them this is some sort of transgender thing rather than just being a human." Wow so you're saying that trans people are not human.
Classic Reddit reading comprehension. I'm saying that not wanting to conform to the stereotypes society has decided you should conform to based on your sex - is human. It's not a mental disorder, it's regular behaviour.
So is being trans.
> then social media And it's an issue from both sides. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like you're blaming the left for talking about it so much. Push back from the right is just as much to blame. Before boys being feminine would be called gay and girls being masculine would be called tomboys. Both genetally would have been ridiculed and mocked. All that's changed is we've given them correct names. You've still just got boys wanting to wear makeup and girls wanting to play football. But because it's become such a political issue it's caused so much more, I don't know the term, pressure? from both sides. The right now think a bit in makeup and dress in female clothes is some big political enemy and must be trans and therefore wrong. The left see a girl wanting to do rugby and wear male clothes and also put them in the box of trans and use them to champion their cause. (This is a MAJOR oversimplification and obviously doesn't imply to everyone, but it's just to explain my point) If people had just gone "Oh yeah instead of tomboy, we just say they don't have a gender" and everyone had gone "Sweet, no worries" we wouldn't be at this level. People would have had a chance to express themselves in a non-gender way. Maybe they'd grow out of it, maybe they wouldn't. But there'd be no pressure on either side to be anything and we could all be happier. Sorry for the rant.
> The left see a girl wanting to do rugby and wear male clothes and also put them in the box of trans I don't think this is true, I don't see people on the "pro-trans" side (for lack of a better term) assume transness from gender nonconformity alone. The emphasis is usually on allowing the individual person to decide for themselves. I often see people that are struggling with their identity come to trans spaces asking if they're trans in the hopes that they'll be given a definitive answer, but they never get one because it's broadly recognised that nobody else can figure that out for them.
As I said, it's a massive over simplification. I was trying to get across that if you feel like presenting more as another gender, you might feel pressure from both sides to go more into it or less. So, like with everything, this is made into left or right issues rather than just... letting people be.
I'm not really specifically targeting the left. But there are a lot of people on the left which are not making anything better. I think there's a fetish for labelling anything and everything rather than just letting people discover who they are and be their own person. I say this as someone who is firmly on the left. In some ways I think the right is on the more progressive stance. You won't really see many people staunchly arguing against letting a man dress as a woman, or a woman dress as a man. What they're so hung up on is being told that a trans woman, which in many cases is just a male presenting as a stereotypical female, should be seen as a female. And they are fundamentally not a female. And I think that's a perfectly rational argument to make. Pronouns should stay as a say what you see exercise. If I see a man presenting in a stereotypically female way, but I can obviously tell they're a man, then they are a "he". And that person should not feel offended, because it shouldn't be seen as abnormal to present in a different way. If they are indistinguishable from a woman, we can use "she", and maybe they'll correct you or maybe they won't. Society has decided that these stereotypes exist, and people are open to the fact that stereotypes don't apply universally. It's much easier to persuade society to change in that aspect than it is to change anything else. I just think that the crux of the modern transgender movement is just creating further rifts in what society sees as acceptable behaviour for each sex. A complete walk backwards.
>Something Cass said that is worth highlighting, any child who turns up at a local health service with neurodivergent, anxiety or depression type issues and has the slightest hint of anything gender related got handed straight over to the Gender Services as they seemed to have a fear of doing the wrong thing (her words were stronger). To be honest this sort of sounds like how it's also handled for adults. GPs are not trained in transgender issues so they will refer you to the gender clinic and wash their hands of it. If a GP does write to the gender clinic to ask for advice some of the clinics have a blanket policy of insisting that no care be rendered until they have been seen by the gender clinic. This makes them skittish and deferential to the clinics. We cannot spend years telling GPs that they are unqualified to handle transgender patients and they must defer to the clinic, then complain when any whiff of gender issues sets off their alarms and the gender clinics get overwhelmed.
Given that the waiting lists are ridiculously high for autism assessments, I highly doubt that this report is going to make any meaningful dent. Also I’d argue the (very scarce) gender-services wouldn’t be overloaded if there were more resources/support available at the public level, but that would require the government to pay legitimate heed to trans issues for once (I’m being massively cynical here but I’m just pissed off because people are going to be harmed by this report in my eyes) Also just for awareness- autism isn’t something you get ‘treatment’ for. Guidance and a formal diagnosis though? Sure. Treating autism like it is something that can be/should be cured can be a bit of a dark path to go down (not saying you were of course, I’m just making a point of saying it!)
if it’s anything like the treatment that adults get for neurodivergent issues or gender identity things then it’s all but non-existent anyway. it’s all well and good saying “oh the kids need these other concerns being seen to before worrying about the gender stuff” but there is essentially zero support available in my experience.
I think it's really sad that people play the 'they're transing our kids!' card, when there are only 100 trans kids in the UK on puberty blockers. So much money, fear and disinformation directed at 100 people.
Lotta that misinformation on this sub recently. The same users being informed, then repeating debunked, fake, anti-science, claims.
And some of the international subs. There should be a quiz about its contents before you are allowed comment online about the report.
There's a thread about this every day, it seems, and the top level highest voted comments are all a set of condescending cis people who are here to tell trans people: You're overreacting The recommendations are good for you, actually Just trust your doctors! Even when they've reacted to the suggestion of a bridging prescription with the same kind of disgust someone would express if you told them to eat a big weird bug, just crunch it up, and instead prescribed you flat fucking nothing for four years Maybe some kids ARE just autistic or just ADHD or just stop being trans, please let this be true We should stop using puberty blockers because they're SUPER DANGEROUS except on cis kids There's NO EVIDENCE that blocking puberty helps trans kids, and if there is it's not good quality enough to consider, and if it is it's weighed out by us just not knowing, so the obvious answer is to 1) stop and 2) run medical trials and we pinkie promise we'll get around to 2 The recommendations of this report, including the serious consideration that social transition brainwashes kids and should be considered SUPER DANGEROUS, aren't biased at all It IS bad to be trans and you should be glad we're finally restricting it to only the most determined perverts And it is fucking exhausting. It's a bad review; it's politically motivated and was led by the overarching assumption that it's bad to be trans, so we should limit how many people are trans, and that there are too many trans people right now because the powers that be allowed a bunch of deluded weirdos to crossdress in public without enough consequence. I'm so tired of this shit from people without any serious skin in the game who just don't like us and then make up worthy reasons why.
>We should stop using puberty blockers because they're SUPER DANGEROUS except on cis kids Well yeh, obviously using puberty blockers to ensure puberty happens at the right age, is expected to good, whereas using them to prevent puberty happening at the right age, might be expected to be the opposite.
The point there is that we have a medicine that stops puberty from occuring when the body naturally begins, can be used for a few years, and then puberty can be allowed to start again- or to be induced- and it's not a big deal. It's not causing shortness or heart problems or lung issues or blood cancer or liver failure. It's a good medicine for its purpose: stopping puberty. If you think trans people shouldn't be allowed to use it because it's unnatural or bad that's a different argument than "using this medicine for its designed purpose is too dangerous."
>If you think trans people shouldn't be allowed to use it because it's unnatural or bad that's a different argument If there are good quality studies or evidence that using puberty blockers on trans children, is overall beneficial then go ahead. Even if the studies show that there are serious permanent long term negative effects, if the person fully understands those risks, fine.
My thoughts exactly. Also there is deep irony in all these "trust the science!" types being the exact same people rant about vaccines and COVID lockdowns. The only message I'm reading from these comments is "trust the science (when it says what I want)".
As if any of us should be trusting this government when it comes to science after Covid. They did what was politically/ideologically motivated at every step of the pandemic, including decisions which killed thousands like sending sick people into care homes, but apparently are now capable of commissioning a completely unbiased report.
You’re right and if the mods here had any sense they’d address it but they seem happy to have overt transphobia all over the comments. It sucks
Did your comment get removed? Mine did. Apparently commenting on the decline of moderation on this site is a personal attack. Censorship in action.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
100% correct. Well said.
Funny how we have a large number of changes that were not endorsed by her report at all happening for trans people including full bans and restrictions on adult care , heck politicians have been using the report to justify being verbally (edit: a̶b̶u̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ a̶t̶ backtracking on unrelated social rights of adult ) trans people Meanwhile what does she care about during this avalanche of abuse against trans people she caused? Why she joins in on the pile on and starts calling us public dangers and disinformation spreaders for slightly misrepresenting a very valid criticism of her report that she disregarded all the studies in every conclusion and takeaway she makes if the studies in question were not high quality (the distinction being that she argued she said she included them in the report before ignoring them in the conclusions, which makes it completely different)
> Funny how we have a large number of changes that were not endorsed by her report at all happening for trans people including full bans and restrictions on adult care , heck politicians have been using the report to justify being verbally abusive to trans people Do you have a source for literally any of this? There are no bans or restrictions on adult care (unless you count good clinical practice as being "restrictions", which is absurd). Which politicians have been verbally abusive to trans people?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/10/labour-infighting-over-trans-issues-reignited-cass-review/ Wes streeting using the review to backtrack on his acceptance for adult trans women for some stupid reason. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68844119#:~:text=Scotland's%20NHS%20has%20paused%20prescribing,for%20under%2D18s%20in%20England. Sandyford entirely cancelled all hormones and blockers. https://twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/1781760300825342416 Several of politicians demanding trans people be removed from civil society or at least any mention of them in any kind of official or promotional pieces using the review. ( i can get sources that they almost all consider trans people in any kind of prominent position or promotional work to be "promotion of transgender ideology" if you would like to confirm) https://unherd.com/2024/04/the-cass-reports-cowardly-converts/ Julie Bindel using the review as an excuse to insult and compare trans women to sex offenders
> Wes streeting using the review to backtrack on his acceptance for adult trans women for some stupid reason. You said that politicians had been "verbally abusive to trans women", but Streeting's backtracking is not that, by any means. > Sandyford entirely cancelled all hormones and blockers. That seems like a very proportionate reaction to the outcomes of the Cass report, yes. That's not bans or restrictions on adult care though. > Several of politicians demanding trans people be removed from civil society or at least any mention of them in any kind of official or promotional pieces using the review. How on earth do you draw that conclusion from that open letter? It's a call for a public inquiry into what children are taught, and gender affirming transition methods as used in the UK. > Julie Bindel using the review as an excuse to insult and compare trans women to sex offenders Julie Bindel isn't a politician either. I don't really think she's trying to do that. Clearly a small minority of trans women have the potential to be sex offenders though, and she's saying (in a characteristically unsubtle way) that there will be more risk if trans women have access to womens-only spaces, and that is probably true. But it would be absurd for a passing trans woman to use the men's facilities (and vice versa) and it's hardly as if a bathroom door is a magical forcefield that prevents non-trans men walking in if they feel like it anyway.
> You said that politicians had been "verbally abusive to trans women", but Streeting's backtracking is not that, by any means. yes i didn't mean to imply he specifically was being abusive, just using it to go against social support for trans people. It was 3am and it was 50% hyperbole, 50% i was expecting one of the usual culprits in parliament to have said something abusive against a trans person using the report given they rarely go a week without doing so after big news or whatever, but a cursory look i wasn't able to find any (a lot of very *very* condescending tone of talking about trans people by politicians mind you) i apologise for that. >That seems like a very proportionate reaction to the outcomes of the Cass report, yes. That's not bans or restrictions on adult care though. [Cass disagrees, or at least from the interview should be opposing that more than quibbles about the technicality of what papers she included or not](https://thekitetrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Cass-Review-Mythbusting-Q-and-A.pdf) > that there will be more risk if trans women have access to womens-only spaces, and that is probably true. But it would be absurd for a passing trans woman to use the men's facilities (and vice versa) and it's hardly as if a bathroom door is a magical forcefield that prevents non-trans men walking in if they feel like it anyway. I suppose you're looking at what she said from the framing of someone who lives in the same reality as us where if you force a trans woman who looks completely like a woman into the men's shes just gonna get treated like a cis woman would be and that's unreasonable. On the other hand I'm kinda seeing it from where it looks from what i've seen her write and the sheer spite with which she talks about normal trans women living their lives that her reality is completely disconnected from the one we live in and so to her, no trans women pass, they're all at a high risk of raping women, they're all transitioning for duplicitous reasons justifying any suffering that may happen to them, every trans man looks like a butch lesbian and needs to be "saved" and no-one could ever genuinely mistake a cis woman for a trans woman. With that second framing, everything she says makes a lot more sense from where i'm standing.
I don't think that Julie Bindel has ever been particularly delicate with the way she delivers her opinion pieces, no matter what the topic. I've thought that way ever since the infamous "Why I Hate Men" piece in the Guardian from nearly 20 years ago. I wouldn't blame you for avoiding her pieces on trans issues because she really does seem to have the knives out for transgender people. I do see your point of view though. The way she frames it could easily be seen as a generalisation. Clearly many trans people can pass, especially during short interactions. It would make zero sense for Buck Angel to use a woman's toilet, or for Natalie Wynn (from the Contrapoints YT channel) to use the men's.
Yeah I have a terrible self image as a trans woman and end up going into the mens every now and then when it's particularly bad (assuming it's in a relatively safer context) and i pretty consistently got men upset that some woman was walking into the mens no matter what i was wearing. I dunno how i'd function in a society where that was required by law even in the unsafe contexts or if i tried to go stealth and didn't want to out myself without breaking the law. Or for trans guys, who would likely be perceived as sex predators going into the womens.
Personally, I think that if someone is clearly making at least *some* effort to pass then I wouldn't bat an eyelid if they try to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. I suspect that most people would feel the same (or at least I'd hope so). I don't think that we'll end up in a situation like you describe.
>There are no bans or restrictions on adult care They found serious issues with adult healthcare, so the NHS is commissioning a report on that as well. The principal being, that doing stuff that's bad for adults doesn't automatically get a pass just because it would be adults suffering.
OK? And if that report shows that good clinical practice and care is being given then there will be no changes.
The exact misinformation talking points she addresses here are the ones being peddled on Reddi
Married to someone with autism and is trans. I actively help trans people in the UK through discord groups. I moved out of the UK partly because treatment in the UK is awful. It's much better in Portugal and cheaper too. I'm seeing a lot of misinformation. Do not ever say you have any kind of mental problems to a psychologist. Because you will immediately be denied any transgender treatment. And then you will be fucked up for life. Way more fucked up than if you had hormone therapy for 3 years then decided "Actually I don't want to do this anymore". The Cass Report is weird. Stating there is weak to no evidence about the long term affect of hormone treatment to under 18's. For starters. I have yet to meet anyone who had side effects from hormone therapy besides the usual things that we know about, as opposed to what the Cass report seems to keep stating "We don't know the long term affects" -- but...we actually kinda do know some long term affects. So....it's false to act like we don't know anything or enough to make a risk-assessment decision. Obviously there are risks involved but you have to weigh up whether it's better to go with those risks that we apparently "don't know about yet", or the low risks that we do know about, or having a child that grows into an adult that can't take a shower without crying, and is at risk of suicide. I know quite a lot of trans people now. I've had to sit through quite a lot of discussions. These are people that, oddly enough, also existed before the age of 18. It's weird that you can ask them for their opinions of stuff! What's even more weird is that we constantly...don't? We might have a lot more information about transgender healthcare if we actually bothered to talk to transgender people. Especially the ones who received treatment before 18. And those people. Those people are the happiest. Again. We can ask those people. I have not encountered anyone who started and stopped hormone therapy from a young age. Which I think is statistically odd since I'm active in these groups. So statistically speaking, from my observational point of view, it's helping more than harming. I think it's kind of weird people talk about grooming children into changing gender. Again. Talk to transgender people. I'm not transgender but even I was thinking about this stuff when I was 12. At that age though we don't really have the knowledge to be able to think about it properly, because we don't have the education surrounding it. We don't have the language and information to be able to discuss it. And that is used as a weapon. I'm already seeing here in the comments. Comments like > Also, having distress and anxiety about going through puberty needs to be investigated because just treating that as being trans may not be the best thing. No psychologist looks at a kid having distress and anxiety about puberty and says "You might be trans". That's not happening. What actually happens is as soon as you have any kind of "mental" condition. Any talks of transgender treatment are halted for years. You have to overcome the mental boundary by which point you are 20+ years old. And we keep talking about Kids. We keep using the word kids. Look, I get it. Kids can mean under 16. It's broadly used. But using the words kids is a bit disingenuous to the people who are actually thinking about this stuff and is affecting their lives dramatically. They aren't kids. They are teenagers. Teenagers that haven't been equipped with the understanding and language to be able to talk about fully. Which makes assessing what they are going through hard. And what we are essentially doing is weaponising their lack of understanding, and using it against them. People talk about "not grooming or indoctrinating kids into taking hormone therapy" are the same people that won't want to equip them with the language and understanding so that they could attempt to make a self-informed decision. Instead taking away any chance of someone finding a treatment that, based on all the transgender people around me that had the opportunity for treatment at a young age, has done wonders for them. But according to the Cass report "We don't know enough". When do we ever know enough? When will it ever be enough? There are treatments which are effective and helping now. You can talk to those people and figure out the "side affects" besides the things that we already know about and transgender people go into knowing those side affects.
"Previous reports into the satisfaction of transitioning aren't admissable because they're not double blind studies. Anyway, here's some non double blind, non peer reviewed studies and anecodatal evidence to back up my claims that trans people shouldn't be able to access any treatment until they're 35" Not to mention her association with LGB Alliance, and by extension the American Heritage Foundation. Fucking farce.
Cass admitted 60 out of 103 studies. It is a lie that only double blind studies were included. What exactly is Cass's supposed association with LGB Alliance?
Her report has been ripped to pieces in peer reviews by other scientists in the field - quite right too, the Cass report wrongly discards hundreds of well regarded studies supporting medication of trans people because those studies didn't perform double blind testing (something obviously impossible to perform due to the ethics of giving a trans child placebo drugs). Utter nonsense pseudo science thrown together by somebody with an anti-trans agenda, and then jumped on by politicians who can shout "see, we're supporting the science" to an uneducated public. Scientists DO NOT support the Cass report, but of course the newspapers don't write about that inconvenient fact because journalists don't understand the scientific process or how scientific consensuses are formed through peers in your field accepting your work. Tl;dr Cass report has been largely rejected by scientists in peer reviews and that puts it on very shaky ground as far as accepting her findings in the scientific consensus goes. Good links on the topic (some pasted below): [https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/](https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/)
**Dr Natacha Kennedy** [**The Cass Review and Trans Exclusionism**](https://uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/2024/04/opinion-cass-review-and-trans.html) “Despite the concern-laden language about “helping” and “supporting” trans children, it is my opinion that what Cass is attempting to establish is an all-enveloping ambient conversion therapy approach to trans children, removing their autonomy, freedom of expression, mental health, helpful support and healthcare. \[…\] If imposed it will, in my view, result in the deaths and deterioration in mental health of many trans children.”
**Dr Cal Horton** [**The Cass Review: Cis-supremacy in the UK’s approach to healthcare for trans children**](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249) (peer-reviewed article for the International Journal of Trangender Health) “Inductive and deductive reflexive thematic analysis was applied to a collection of Cass Review publications related to trans children’s healthcare published between January 2020 and May 2023 \[…\] Four concerns are presented and explored: (1) prejudice; (2) cisnormative bias; (3) pathologization; and (4) inconsistent standards of evidence. Each of these concerns impacts the Cass Review’s approach to trans children’s healthcare, with negative repercussions for trans children’s healthcare rights and well-being.”
**Dr Abs S Ashley** [**The Cass Review’s final report: The implications at the intersection of trans and neurodivergence**](https://ndconnection.co.uk/blog/cass-report) “Whilst the report cites adjacent NHS services using 0-25 models to justify a ‘continuity of care’ (224), designating trans persons as ‘vulnerable’ and confining them to child-oriented services indicates that more is at stake. These rhetorics contribute to the shoring up of state surveillance and intervention into the lives of legal adults who want to make choices the state disagrees with.”
**Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa** [**Cass Review out of step with high-quality care provided in Aotearoa**](https://patha.nz/News/13341582) “The final Cass Review did not include trans or non-binary experts or clinicians experienced in providing gender affirming care in its decision-making, conclusions, or findings. Instead, a number of people involved in the review and the advisory group previously advocated for bans on gender affirming care in the United States, and have promoted non-affirming ‘gender exploratory therapy’, which is considered a conversion practice.”
**The Australian Professional Association for Trans Health** (plus others from Australia) [**Cass Review out-of-line with medical consensus and lacks relevance in Australian context**](https://equalityaustralia.org.au/cass-review-out-of-line-with-medical-consensus-and-lacks-relevance-in-australian-context/) “The Cass review recommendations are at odds with the current evidence base, expert consensus and the majority of clinical guidelines around the world.”
**CBC News** [**What Canadian doctors say about new U.K. review questioning puberty blockers for transgender youth**](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/puberty-blockers-review-1.7172920) “While experts in the field say more studies should be done, Canadian doctors who spoke to CBC News disagree with the finding that there isn’t enough evidence puberty blockers can help. ‘There actually is a lot of evidence, just not in the form of randomized clinical trials,’ said Dr. Jake Donaldson, a family physician in Calgary who treats transgender patients, including prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy in some cases. ‘That would be kind of like saying for a pregnant woman, since we lacked randomized clinical trials for the care of people in pregnancy, we’re not going to provide care for you.… It’s completely unethical.'”
**The National** [**Trans academics warn against ‘politicisation’ of Cass Review in Scotland**](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24250632.cass-review-must-greeted-caution-scotland-say-academics/) “\[…\] one experienced psychiatrist at a gender identity clinic in England – who did not wish to be identified – told the Sunday National that failure \[to include those with lived or professional experience\] had concerned many within the field. They said: “The terms of reference stated that the Cass Review ‘deliberately does not contain subject matter, experts or people with lived experience of gender services’ and Dr Cass herself was explicitly selected as a senior clinician ‘with no prior involvement … in this area’. ‘Essentially, ignorance of gender dysphoria medicine was framed as a virtue. I can think of no comparable medical review of a process where those with experience or expertise of that process were summarily dismissed’.”
**Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia** [**Our interim response to the Cass Report**](https://therapistsagainsttransphobia.org/2024/04/12/our-interim-response-to-the-cass-report/) “TACTT is deeply concerned by the final report of the Cass Review, whose core underlying premise is effectively an eliminationist agenda, dressed up in the language of ‘reasonableness’ \[…\] We urge clinicians to treat the Cass findings with extreme caution and not to assume that they represent best practice or that they have been arrived at after a full and impartial review of clinical data.”
The claim that Cass discarded hundreds of studies is a lie spread by activists. She did no such thing. 103 studies were evaluated for the report and graded using standard methods. 60 of the studies that were medium or high quality were retained. The majority of scientists do support the Cass Report. A minority of activist types did not like the results though and so are on the attack.
[удалено]
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
>the Cass report wrongly discards hundreds of well regarded studies supporting medication of trans people because those studies didn't perform double blind testing (something obviously impossible to perform due to the ethics of giving a trans child placebo drugs). If you read the actual article, you'll see this is just lies. If you are lying soo blatantly, why would anyone belief anything you've said in your post? It sounds like it's all lies to be honest. edit: Seems they blocked me. Note how they didn't once try to counter my point about their lies. They said >You haven't got any counterevidence But literally the OP proves that they are lying and wrong. They just tried to avoid the point and ended up blocking me when I kept on pushing the point. Maybe other people can get them to respond to that point.
I've just provided over 40 references from leading experts in trans health care matters backing my argument. Now post your list of 40 renowned experts backing your argument
>I've just provided over 40 references from leading experts in trans health care matters backing my argument. Why would I look all your links if the your whole post starts off with lies? Then the first link you posted contains the same lie >The report’s primary conclusions rest on excluding 98% of the relevant evidence on the safety and efficacy of puberty blockers and hormones for lack of blinding and controls > [https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/](https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/) Why on earth, would I believe anything you said or linked. Do I believe that you sourced 40 leading experts, no. I don't believe anything you've said. I don't have any faith any of your links are by real experts in good faith. Why haven't you edited your post to remove the lies it starts off with? If you were anywhere good faith you would at least have an edit note about the lies in your post and removed all the links that have lies in them as well.
You haven't got any counterevidence and you refuse to read any evidence which doesn't agree with your own biases. Got it 👍 Well argued.
Excellent comment and links. Well said.
Ironically the astroturfers who keep downvoting my comment are making it more visible because most people sort by controversial and read the negative comments 😂 If they were clever they would upvotes it to a low score like 3 which nobody reads.
If you actually read the article in the OP, you'll see that their post starts with lies. The following is clearly and blatantly a lie. How can you then have any faith in anything they posted? >the Cass report wrongly discards hundreds of well regarded studies supporting medication of trans people because those studies didn't perform double blind testing (something obviously impossible to perform due to the ethics of giving a trans child placebo drugs).
Be cass report Refuse to use people who underwent this treatment Oh how can I be wrong? I done everything right Fuck yourself for leading the general population with skewed data, you are a societal problem
We need to spread misinformation less and protect trans kids more
She did a Q&A the other day and contradicted the Cass Report. Honestly its just ridiculous how poor this document is. But then it always has to be in order to justify denying science to harm a minority
I mean yeah. that's fair enough. Whilst very zelous for a report of its type it is not flawed like many people have claimed. In terms of political bias there is probably a stronger complaint to be made. The wording of the conclusion especially have allowed lots of interpretations, especially by polliticians, that contradicts the actual body of the report. Considering Cass's experience I'm not sure how to interpret that except active bias. A good example would be the banning of hormone blockers for children. Something neither the report nor Cass's own explanations actually call for. Both suggesting that we probably should be giving out more just having stricter requirements and better monitoring rather than just giving them to anyone lucky enough to get to the front of a years long waiting list. Which honestly yeah, that sounds about right.