Cass review - out on Wednesday

Please sign the petition to remove hunt from peerage
https://chng.it/kZsDsffdjY

I am preparing a letter for the charity commission to investigate and request criminal investigation for said charities. Are there any links which can be used in support of a request.

Also GLADD. Am trying to find any evidence of them commenting on Cass. All I can find it this from their twitter feed. They are active in trying to influence medical training (most especially in successfully encouraging medical schools to ban 'conversion therapy' https://gladd.co.uk/activism-conversion-therapy-charter/ consistent with the MoU now rejected by UKCP).

Haven't seen it but should there be a countdown to the time this is declared a false flag exercise?

😀

I'm also quite enjoying the trans AMA on feminism chat, where you can't actually ask him anything, and when you do, he is single-handedly creating platoons of new die hard terfs, in real time.

I'm more this:

Yep.

Screenshots from an NICE study in 2020 and a steadfast refusal to post, or even name, any of the studies they said disproved what Cass was saying.

Then an ideological rant.

Amazing how they're so incensed about Cass calling these studies low evidenced, but when you ask for them to link to any of them they won't.

It is, rather coincidentally, reminiscent of the 'six out of seven gender clinics, said their cats ate their homework'.

But apparently Eresh, that OP had personally done many extensive reviews and was very familiar with reviewing paediatric medicine specifically. Why could they not convince anyone that the Cass report and all the other world authorities saying the exact same thing were fully deserving of their very sick 'joke' treatment?

I had a read of the AIBU thread yesterday, now I recognise the blurry screenshot with yellow highlights they were posting, it came from the same twitter thread (by Alejandra Carabello) that Owen Jones and Billy Bragg (probably among others) were getting their (dis)information from.

Yes, I think someone called this out on the thread, and OP seems to have abandoned it now.

The hardcore activists know to wear face masks and use names like ‘Shroomy’ on their blog posts.

Wonder if the gender-entranced doctors are wise enough to do the same? Dr Ronx certainly wasn’t!

(found these online over the weekend but hadn’t posted them anywhere on Mumsnet yet - do these images convince you to abandon evidence-based medicine? 🤣)

I had a read of the AIBU thread yesterday, now I recognise the blurry screenshot with yellow highlights they were posting, it came from the same twitter thread (by Alejandra Carabello) that Owen Jones and Billy Bragg (probably among others) were getting their (dis)information from.

Can I say that, in a way, as someone who spends a considerable amount of my time in support of evidence based medicine, the idea that a review is prompting marches, gathering and banner drops, is rather thrilling.

I wonder just how many staff at NICE, NIHR, MHRA, NHS England (other NHS organisations in devolved and other nations are available) will Get involved and get loud.

Just how much more straying from the path of evidence based assessments of trial data and science are people's employers ready to sanction.

Haha yes I came here to post that too

Here’s the Genderborg transactivist org response (by ‘What the Trans’) to the Cass Review.

(dunno about you wimms but I deffo prioritise blog posts edited by people named ‘Shroomy’ over almost 400 pages authored by one of the most eminent paediatric consultants in the U.K. 😁)

https://archive.is/PL4Mv

https://whatthetrans.com/

Their predictability is getting really old 🙄

Thanks for the link.

Here

To nominate the principle authors of the CASS review for this.. http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/5049818-to-nominate-the-principle-authors-of-the-cass-review-for-this

TRAs complaining that studies were rejected only leads me to conclude that an analysis of those studies would be more than useful, and yet another foot shooting exercise on their behalf.

Exactly. There was an AIBU yesterday where someone with an obvious agenda was saying that Cass was wrong because observational studies were important and shouldn't have been discounted because they "weren't doubled blinded controlled trials". I and others repeatedly pressed the OP to link the studies they felt had been unfairly ignored. Of course they didn't do this.

I would welcome an analysis of the low quality studies and an argument as to why they should be included.

Such researchers are also welcome to re-run the analyses, including those studies, and comment on the impact of that. I would then like evaluations such as those in the Cochrane Handbook that test the impact of including or excluding individual studies.

NB: it would be gracious of Owen Jones to respond to his inadvertent use of misinformation and disinformation.

I doubt he cares enough.

Yes I was thinking that.

TRAs complaining that studies were rejected only leads me to conclude that an analysis of those studies would be more than useful, and yet another foot shooting exercise on their behalf.

A study of ll the rejected studies would actually be interesting especially if there was a ay to correlate major findings to the ideology of the authors.

As a follow-up:

https://twitter.com/benryanwriter/status/1779682267356418193

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

NB: it would be gracious of Owen Jones to respond to his inadvertent use of misinformation and disinformation.

There's this part in the SEGM response about Cass' use of ' gender identity':

Questioning the assumption of the gender identity theory:
While some have criticized the Cass report for relying on constructs coming from the gender identity theory (e.g., referring to “gender identity” without critically assessing the origin and validity of this concept), the report did briefly address the outdated nature of the assumptions on which the “gender-affirming” care model is based. The report noted that the theory of gender identity development was set forth in 1966 by Kohlberg, who described a typical progression whereby by the age of 5-6, children develop gender identity constancy.
The report noted the obvious fact that the current patterns of both identifying as transgender for the first time at much older ages and also the growing phenomenon of detransition and re-identification with natal sex demonstrably contradict this theory.

Fair point.

She's certainly left the door open to that by saying that things are "not yet understood" (the highlighted part of my screenshot).
This is a positive way to think of it and something that is helpful to keep in mind.

It's frustrating that there wasn't more of a baton to help with the schools' guidance, to keep the momentum going before we have a seemingly inevitable change of government. Even an echo of it being a "contested belief" or similar from the draft guidance (screenshot below) would have helped in that regard. What it highlights is that there is still a hard slog ahead, despite how pivotal this report is.

I've still not forgotten Brigit Phillipson coming on to Mumsnet and telling us in a Q&A that Labour would start a consultation process if they got in to power. When the government consultation subsequently came out, she was very woolly in how she "welcomed" it. Focusing on the fact that it was happening, rather than anything in it. Perhaps I'm being too cynical but I am concerned that there is too much of an opportunity for further delay.

Here's a clip of Brigit's response at the time: