To nominate the principle authors of the CASS review for this..

Yes, that very one.

Oh this A Caraballo? (Watch for 2 mins to see the painful realisation that they are getting owned by they's own inflammatory SM posts)

Well we know now where that cropped highlighted misleading screenshot came from. Caraballo posted it and all the TRAs have copied it, so it’s everywhere now.

But does transition allow people to do those things? Is there evidence that people who transition do better socially? That they have better mental health? That they can have intimate relationships? Is the 'cure' actually a cure in reality?

It’s not a ‘cure’ it’s been described by some as palliative. There’s evidence it can reduce GD and improve key aspects of life for some people yes. There’s research evidence as well as some high profile trans/sexual people in relationships including having their own families.

I agree the exact percentages aren’t known. It’s not a magic cure. It’s clearly a difficult road to go down. But for some it seems to be better than the alternative.

I call Billy Bullshitter.

This OP can't write 'FUCK' on a wall.

Missed this thread yesterday. Wow.

If gender ideologists are so certain they’re right, why are you all so terrified of generating high quality research evidence?

I just wanted to highlight this excellent point by a pp. And why are gender ideologists not raging that researchers are producing such low quality research if they are so certain they are right? They've chosen to go after the people pointing out that the research into such areas is shite rather than asking the researchers why they're not doing a better job in proving it either way.

(Edited as bold fail)

That doesn’t mean we should let people spend a lifetime of dysphoria, so uncomfortable with their sex they can’t function socially, psychologically or have intimate relationships.

But does transition allow people to do those things? Is there evidence that people who transition do better socially? That they have better mental health? That they can have intimate relationships? Is the 'cure' actually a cure in reality?

And that includes Dr Cass herself of course. 🫠

So everyone who disagrees with you does so because they argue from a position of bad faith?

That’s quite telling.

The thing is, OP, we know that if someone jumps out of a plane without a parachute there is an almost certain risk of death. So, no need to carry out RCTs on the efficacy of parachutes.

We also know a lot of things about the drugs which are used to block puberty.

We know that these drugs have been used to chemically castrate sex offenders as a form of punishment and risk management, where the physical side effects experienced by the person given the drugs have been either of secondary importance or not given any consideration at all.

We know that they have been used to treat certain aggressive forms of cancer, generally in patients who are already highly likely to die.

We know that they are used as sparingly as possible to treat women with endometriosis and children experiencing precocious puberty, based on a careful risk/benefit analysis and taking into account the known, serious, side effects.

We know that these drugs have a negative impact on brain and bone development, meaning that they can cause serious unwanted side effects such as osteoporosis and a significant drop in IQ.

So we know that they are not safe, we know that at least some of the side effects are not reversible, and we know that in practice they are not used to "pause" sexual development to give children time to think, because in almost 100% of cases those children go on to cross sex hormones as soon as they are able to.

Quite apart from the practical difficulties of carrying out proper clinical trials, arising from the fact that children will soon know whether they have been allocated to the test group or the control group, I fail to see how, given everything we already know about these drugs, it would even be ethical to carry out clinical trials, knowing what harm will most likely be done to children in the test group.

Also, as much as I hate to say it, it looks likely that healthcare systems in other countries such as the US will continue to hand out puberty blockers like sweeties, meaning that if we just wait a few years we will be able to see the effects of the widespread use of puberty blockers ourselves, without harming our own population.

Let's let those American doctors and hospitals with deep pockets pay out millions of dollars in compensation to people whose health they knowingly damaged for profit, rather than exposing our already overburdened NHS to inevitable clinical negligence claims in the future by continuing with "treatments" we have plenty of evidence to suggest are harmful and little to no evidence to suggest are beneficial.

In the meantime, it would be far kinder to explain to our dysphoric children that whether they take puberty blockers or not, there are no drugs or surgery in existence which will transform them into an adult of the opposite sex to the one they were born as, and they would be better off learning to love the bodies they are in rather than risking infertility, sexual dysfunction, osteoporosis and brain damage in a fruitless effort to achieve the impossible.

Ending the chemical castration of gay, autistic and looked after children (the groups that make up the majority of the patient cohort) is a very good thing, IMO.

Well of course it is. How could any right thinking person disagree?

Yet we have the OP and others cheering these abuses on. How did this come to be?

Excellent post @TheClogLady

Pubertal blockade from Tanner 2 or 3 onwards is not ‘safe’ (all medical intervention involves risk and the risk/reward benefit for a healthy, normally developing body age 10plus is different to the risk/reward benefit of a child who erroneously begins puberty age 5 due to a brain tumour) and there is no proof that pubertal blockade is ’effective’ in the treatment of gender dysphoria.

If anyone has proof that GnRHa drugs are effective in the treatment of gender dysphoria (NOT fantasies from transgender adults who retcon their own histories and say they wish they had been given blockers 30/40/50 years ago) I would be interested to see it, because all the studies I’ve see are unconvincing (small numbers, no significant improvement in gender distress noted, side effects including early onset osteopenia, tooth loss, IQ drop of 10 points and more).

Ending the chemical castration of gay, autistic and looked after children (the groups that make up the majority of the patient cohort) is a very good thing, IMO.

Blockers not blokers

You want to test puberty blokers on children @NameChangeCass . What the heck.

Have you heard of 'First do no harm'.

Surely you have cone across confused teens . Giving them drugs to stop puberty because they 'think' they might be in the 'wrong' body. Whose body are they in then. Giving drugs to stop puberty causing irreparable harm is abuse!

Absolutely correct.

It’s true the highest level of evidence is never going to be applied to gender medicine. It’s never going to be ethical or possible to randomise control or double blind gender change drugs or surgeries to anyone, of any age.

That doesn’t mean we should let people spend a lifetime of dysphoria, so uncomfortable with their sex they can’t function socially, psychologically or have intimate relationships. The review highlights the likely causes being a mixture of factors - biological, psychological and social.

Cass states it has not been possible to find evidence for the effectiveness of talking therapies for managing gender distress. (Unlike anxiety/ depression).

The Cass review also states that for some the best outcome will be transition. (Many overlook this statement).

A significant problem with puberty blockers is that most children with gender dysphoria will desist, and puberty is part of that process. So stopping it in most cases will stop the solution.

However identity consolidation is more stable in later adolescence, from around 16 years. There is more of a case for use of cross sex hormones from 16 in a small minority, as is done in countries like Finland. More countries are starting to adopt this more conservative approach.

Of course all cases should be followed up long term so the evidence can be gathered, and benefits and risks can be better understood. The lack of this has been a big failure in the care of people with GD.

It is of precisely no surprise to me, @Ereshkigalangcleg, that the OP has entirely misrepresented … well, everything.

Obsfucation for ideological reasons. Thats like the unofficial slogan of this weird movement that seems determined to treat vulnerable children with significant comorbidities as sacrificial lambs for the cause.

https://www.quackometer.net/blog/2024/04/breaking-down-cass-review-myths-and-misconceptions-what-you-need-to-know.html

We can see from the report and papers that Cass did not insist that only randomised controlled trials were used to assess the evidence. The York team that conducted the analyses chose a method to asses the quality of studies called the Newcastle Ottawa Scalele*^. This is a method best suited for non RCT trials. Cass has selected an assessment method best suited for the nature of the available evidence rather than taken a dogmatic approach on the need for DBRCTs. The results of this method were discussed about countering Myth 1.

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is a tool designed to assess the quality of non-randomized studies, particularly observational studies such as cohort and case-control studies. It provides a structured method for evaluating the risk of bias in these types of studies and has become widely used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The NOS consists of a set of criteria grouped into three main categories: selection of study groups, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest.
Each category contains several items, and each item is scored based on predefined criteria. The total score indicates the overall quality of the study, with higher scores indicating lower risk of bias.
This scale is best applied when conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses that include non-randomized studies. By using the NOS, researchers can objectively assess the quality of each study included in their review, allowing them to weigh the evidence appropriately and draw more reliable conclusions.

One of the strengths of the NOS is its flexibility and simplicity. It provides a standardized framework for evaluating study quality, yet it can be adapted to different study designs and research questions. Additionally, the NOS emphasizes key methodological aspects that are crucial for reducing bias in observational studies, such as appropriate selection of study participants and controlling for confounding factors.

Another advantage of the NOS is its widespread use and acceptance in the research community. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses rely on the NOS to assess the quality of included studies, making it easier for researchers to compare and interpret findings across different studies.

As for future studies, Cass makes no demand only DBRCTs are conducted. What is highlighted is at the very least that service providers build a research capacity to fill in the evidence gaps.

I wonder if Susie Green knows the difference between principle and principal...

Gah I've been holding back on this, but it irks me every time I see the thread title!

I wonder if Susie Green knows the difference between principle and principal...

@NameChangeCass come on now OP you are Susie Green aren't you!

we know that PBs are a safe and effective medicine

except that just saying it - and even really wishing it were true - does not make that statement any less total misinformation.

Indeed, to make that claim on a thread that is supposedly about the Cass report is pretty staggering.

It is very apparent that we do not know that puberty blockers are either safe or effective. And we certainly don’t have the evidence to justify denying young people their basic right to development.

”we know that PBs are a safe and effective medicine that can help until children”

Who is “we”? Why won’t anyone share the evidence that proves puberty blockers are ‘safe and effective’. If there is genuine evidence that they are safe and effective, I suspect we wouldn’t even need this thread because I assume you would have posted it.

I wouldn’t consider myself GC but I am against children being prescribed life changing medicines without there being evidence that they’re safe.

Handy blog looking at some of the myths that have already taken root about Cass going into detail about what studies were looked at what were not. I know be shocked to discover that ‘they disregarded 98% of them’ is total bollocks

https://www.quackometer.net/blog/2024/04/breaking-down-cass-review-myths-and-misconceptions-what-you-need-to-know.html