The Cass Review- Interim Report

'CAMHS is absolutely broken.'

And I think that has contributed directly to the surge of trans-identifying adolescent females turning up at GIDS desperate for hormones and surgery. They needed far earlier intervention and they needed that intervention to assess their psychological health in the round.

'But even if children are seen by CAMHS, I'm not sure outcomes would be different.'

I'm not sure either. I do know affirmation-only is unethical and liable to push certain outcomes. The approach - whether through a GIDs-style clinic or other service, needs to be exploratory on every level.

Yes, there is no 'open-mindedness' to an affirmation-only approach and it is an outright lie from Mermaids (colour me shocked) that they have always supported an exploratory, child-centred approach. They're just lying as usual. These are the same people who have been shrieking about 'conversion therapy' as if trying to explore whether a child being bullied might contribute to their distress about their sexed body is some sort of attempt to 'convert' 'trans youth'.

Agreed rogdmum . It's long overdue for schools to be challenged about their unthinking promotion of this ideology. James Kirkup pointed out how Life-changing and sometimes irreversible medical treatment is being administered to a growing number of females, without evidence for how that treatment will affect females but mainly on the basis of limited evidence about how such treatments affect males.

The main influence for this (as evidenced by all the whistleblowers) has been those birth registered males who run the lobby groups and have been given unprecedented access to GIDS, schools and children to promote their ideological views. To the detriment of all children.

AFAIK psychs within CAMHS or the NHS generally can't advocate a watch and wait policy unless the family is pursuing that. The consultation that ended last month considers a watch and wait approach to be conversion therapy

There is a difference between supporting the subjective experience ('Yes, I accept that you feel X and you are supported while we explore what's happening') and supporting a young person's understanding of who they are ('Yes, you are trans'). These things aren't the same.

Other terms are worth checking in the Cass glossary.

For example, gender incongruence is deemed a "diagnostic term", while gender-questioning is "a broader term that might describe...".

Some things are terms and some might be broader ones. The "might bes" will be worth looking out for as regards where they pop up, in what context, and who uses them.

Mermaids' take on the affirmative model stands out.

First, on language, Cass says:

"There is sometimes no consensus on the best language to use relating to this subject...
The terms we have used may not always feel right to some; nevertheless, it is important to emphasise that the language used is not an indication of a position being taken by the Review. The glossary below sets out a description of some of the terms we have used in the Review."

The Cass glossary - on theaffirmative model - says:

"A model of gender healthcare that originated in the USA which affirms a young person’s subjective gender experience while remaining open to fluidity and changes over time. This approach is used in some key child and adolescent clinics across the Western world."
(With 4 footnotes)

Mermaids say:

"It is worth addressing confusion on what is meant by affirmative care. Mermaids supports both national (British Psychological Society) and international (WPATH) guidance and best practice on the use of an affirmative approach to trans healthcare, which simply means supporting a young person’s understanding of who they are while taking an exploratory approach. The two are not mutually exclusive. In our view, this aligns with the interim report’s approach of supportive, exploratory intervention. We welcome clarification from the Cass Review team on this."

'How do wait times for Tavistock compare to wait times for CAMHS?'

I don't know, but I suspect the two issues are linked. If you can get the gender-questioning children in front of good, ethical therapists before they seek help from motivated adults, you have a much better chance of getting to the bottom of the issue than you do after they've waited three years to see someone, and spent that time in a binder or sourcing drugs off the internet. Bloody disastrous.

'At the moment, in society as it is now, transition genuinely does make life better for a subset of children.'

This simply is not evidenced, other than anecdotally. I'm not dismissing it as a possibility but at the moment it's just an assertion.

The weasel rewording is a strong signal that they're banking on their supporters not consulting the original report but to take it on their word

Maybe Mermaids are trying to let the kids and families down gently by drip feeding and gradually changing the narrative?

I do hope that's the case as we always said when this unravels it will leave behind some devastated children and families.

I would say more than one thing about this. I would say that people who work at GIDS are a huge part of what has come out of this report - it's not a question of brave Dr Cass fighting the Tavistock, but clinicians at the Tavi with concerns finding someone with a remit and credibility who had sway over their managers finally listening to them. Also this is absolutely not about ending the use of transition as a treatment. At the moment, in society as it is now, transition genuinely does make life better for a subset of children. Why that should be is as much for the members of MN to think about as for Mermaids. There are parents dealing with this right now. Like most if us I hope this report will help those in that situation.

Leopard, spots.

Also, when Cass says gender questioning young people deserve, but are not receiving, the same standard of care as everyone else, yes, this means wait times, but it also means the precise lack of proper differential diagnosis, safeguarding and recording of properly informed consent that Mermaids have been pushing for donkey's years. They're the weak link.

Their incomes depends on spinning this their way.

They're used to telling outright lies.

Can anyone at Mermaids actually read? How can the sit and write what they have?

The weasel rewording is a strong signal that they're banking on their supporters not consulting the original report but to take it on their word.

Leading supporters down a path that you've misrepresented is not going to stand them in good stead.

Their days are numbered.

Which is how they've managed to be so successful and to have such a pernicious effect on the lives of so many young people.