The Cass Review- Interim Report

Thank you for the link. I'm book marking to read later, but am pleased by the comments made so far.

Thanks for this, will read later. Looks v promising though.

3.23 It is also important to note that any data that are available do not relate to the current predominant cohort of later-presenting birth-registered female teenagers. This is because the rapid increase in this subgroup only began from around 2014-15. Since young people may not reach a settled gender expression until their mid-20s, it is too early to assess the longer-term outcomes of this group

Just adding the reference for later.

Unhappy children need active support, rather than being ignored.

Children who may be neuro-diverse need active support, rather than being ignored.

And the nature of the support needs to be appropriate, evidence-based and funded.

Societal attitudes towards gender roles and gender expression are changing. Children, teenagers and younger adults may more commonly see gender as a fluid, multi-faceted phenomenon which
does not have to be binary, whereas older generations have tended to see gender as binary and fixed. (from p 26)

Agree with previous comments. Younger people may think they see gender as more fluid than older people but I think I see them as far more self defined by arbitrary stereotypical roles.

Oh this is good news. Thanks for sharing. (Bookmarking for later!)

And this:

'1.16. Another significant issue raised with us is one of diagnostic overshadowing – many of the children and young people presenting have complex needs, but once they are identified as having gender-related distress, other important healthcare issues that would normally be managed by local services can sometimes be overlooked.'

Things we knew, backed up with research:

'1.14. Primary and secondary care staff have told us that they feel under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters.'

It is also important to note that any data that are available do not relate to the current predominant cohort of later-presenting birth-registered female teenagers. This is because the rapid increase in this subgroup only began from around 2014-15. Since young people may not reach a settled gender expression until their mid-20s, it is too early to assess the longer-term outcomes of this group.

It is really interesting to see this in black and white and off social media. How often have I, personally, written this on numerous threads? Especially in response to having that incredibly unbalanced Cornell link plopped down like it is some kind of 'gotcha' with its 50+ studies. Having combed through each of them, they never address the issues of this group.

Seems like a too simplistic take. It wonder just how many of the 'older generations' believe 'gender roles' are binary and fixed really?

It also totally overlooks cross-cultural and historical perspectives ...

I mean (coff) look at women in the North of England (coff) ...

Thank you for link.

I agree Spart.

Societal attitudes towards gender roles and gender expression are changing. Children, teenagers and younger adults may more commonly see gender as a fluid, multi-faceted phenomenon which
does not have to be binary, whereas older generations have tended to see gender as binary and fixed. (from p 26)

Seems like a too simplistic take. It wonder just how many of the 'older generations' believe 'gender roles' are binary and fixed really? I mean, if that was the case, my mother defied a few of those 'gender roles' without any thought at all that she was doing it. So, I really think this generalisation is not helpful.

For now, I'm reading it as offering none of the active interventions cited in 5.19 is not a neutral act (and this would include the non-availability of counselling). Or, there are many different ways of 'doing nothing' and some are more active and intentional than others.

In clinical trial terms, and particularly after the recent elaboration of the different types of control/placebo, even a waiting list protocol is more active than passive observation of people who are neither receiving the intervention nor waiting for it.

TIDieR-Placebo: A guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls
Howick J, Webster RK, Rees JL, Turner R, Macdonald H, et al. (2020) TIDieR-Placebo: A guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls. PLOS Medicine 17(9): e1003294. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003294

It's really good but my only real concern is that she does buy the genderist line that 'gender' is 'socially constructed' and also somehow 'innate' and that there can be 'incongruence' between expressed and assigned gender' that requires treatment (pp. 27-27). Somehow the emphasis on 'sex' has slipped here.

With regard to social transitioning not being a neutral act, it also says on page 63:

5.20. It should also be recognised that ‘doing nothing’ cannot be considered a neutral act.

I don’t really understand that statement. I understand that “doing nothing” requires making a decision to do so, but surely the act of doing nothing is, in itself neutral? The only reason I can imagine for it not being seen as a neutral act, is that campaigners have made it so. If anyone can explain, I’m interested to understand better.

I haven't got a copy of the photo of Mermaids at a fair with candy and dogs to lure the kids in but it is on my back up hard drive. For future reference.

I thought I couldn’t be shocked any more…

I’d heard similar stories, charlie. Being bullied out seemed to be quite a common experience. I can imagine it’s going to be a hard read for staff left there, but a necessary one.

It’s a case study into institutional capture and a flourishing toxic environment going largely unchecked. I really hope things can be turned around.

I didn’t know about the large over representation of looked after children.

I hadn't heard that about the UK, but I'd heard such reports from Canada. Jenn Smith (transwoman) has been focusing on this in his campaigning, as an ex-foster child himself. He quoted some ludicrously high percentage of patients at one gender psychologist being from foster care - 50%. Not checked the details of that claim though.

The study referenced in the Cass review says

Looked-after young people were found to represent 4.9% of referrals in this cohort, which is significantly higher than within the English general population (0.58%). Adopted young people represented 3.8% of referrals.

But that was referring to "185 young people referred to a UK gender identity development service over a 2-year period (1 April 2009 to 1 April 2011)", so long before the current trend.

To be fair I am only at p. 19, but it really is like reading the MN points listed one by one.

• lack of description
• leads to lack of diagnostic tools
• leads to increase in referrals
• leads to drop in care standards
• leads to drop in follow up
• leads to a false perception that on success of treatment

and the list could go on.

Thanks again rogdmum for this link and for your patient posting in the past.

Sophoclesthefox
Looked after children were specifically targeted as a group by trans lobby groups with some appalling "guidance" issued for children alienated from their families.

This is a shameful indictment of the NHS, the government and all institutions who have been captured by these toxic groups that it even has to be stated that these vulnerable children must receive the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as every other child
It beggars belief that clinicians need an enquiry to point out that there's no research or data and that a "fundamentally different service model is needed which is more in line with other paediatric provision..... This must include support for any other clinical presentations that they may have"

These poor children and their families who have to date been so subject to such inadequate care and treatment.

No, that’s not fair. Plenty of people there did, or tried to. Then they left because they felt so compromised and unable to give the children appropriate care.

I met a few social workers and youth workers doing just that. They were either bullied out of their jobs or left because they couldn't properly look after these kids and couldn't morally justify continuing under those conditions.