Cass review - out on Wednesday

Yes. This exactly, Red.

Cass could not say there's no such thing as trans kids. Anyone who thinks it could is naive. It is something beyond the scope of the review at this moment in time. Simply because there's no evidence to back that claim up - at this stage.

But as we start to look at comorbidity issues the evidence will build and I do think we could be looking at a different picture which will raise questions about schools and safeguarding. And the internet more generally.

At that point we can start to ask the right questions.

Timing is crucial. You can't run before you can walk. This is about consensus building based on solid foundations. You have to let the evidence lead.

Screenshots for point 2

This is a great piece of analysis. Thank you for posting @DameMaud

There's lots of good information in here but to pick out a couple of parts:

1. the issue of gender identity being given credence is mentioned. Although I really don't want to pull apart such a great piece of work by Dr Cass, I'm glad that the door has been left open to challenge this aspect. See highlight in screenshot below.

2. they have highlighted the importance of the analysis on the number of children and young people who go on to medical transition. This is often an area that I've seen TRAs use as a gotcha, with phrases like "hardly anyone goes on to medically transition so why are you so concerned about that pathway". We already have the 98% figure of those who take puberty blockers going on to cross-sex hormones but the new information goes wider than that. Obviously not all children and young people who are referred will have been put on puberty blockers so a more meaningful figure is how many go on to a medical transition pathway in total (irrespective of puberty blocker use). Although this is still unknown, because of the transfer to adult services and lack of follow-up, there is more information about what that might look like. I'll put the screenshots in a separate post.

Thank you @BreadInCaptivity for the BMJ article.

I have posted this link on another thread. It’s the minutes from one of the Scottish Government Gender Recognition Reform Committee hearings https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/chamber-and-committees/official-report/what-was-said-in-parliament/ehrcj-21-06-2022?meeting=13837&iob=125452

It’s Professor Alice Sullivan’s excellent evidence about the importance of data collection based on sex and why it should be a requirement in the Act.

Professor Sullivan also contributed to the UK Office for Statistics Regulation guidance on data collection on sex and gender
https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/our-work-on-data-about-sex-and-gender-identity/

I am sending anyone who sends me a survey with conflated questions about sex and gender a copy of the guide recommending they follow best practice.

SEGM's very thorough response to Cass:
https://segm.org/Final-Cass-Report-2024-NHS-Response-Summary

Now bring mermaids and stonewall need to be brought to account

I hope so

The Cass report is the golden bridge for the Guardian, because it allows fact based reporting. Many Guardian readers are intelligent and ideologically uncompromised - close family of mine, for example - and have simply ignored the genderwoo as silly and beneath their notice, like much lifestyle journalism. They really can’t ignore it any more.

Yes, it's an interesting volte face at the Graun.

Perhaps it is just another example of the credulousness of their journalists; they need to be told what to think rather than doing the work.

Which is a shame because a moderate centre-Left paper is my natural political home.

And in the Graun no less. In an article which describes the Cass report as “important” rather than “a transphobic attack on trans people perpetuated by the right wing” or whatever bollocks we’ve come to anticipate from them.

<reaches for smelling salts>

Just seen this on Twitter. It’s all coming tumbling down thank god!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/11/ban-on-childrens-puberty-blockers-to-be-enforced-in-private-sector-in-england

Found this. Thought it apt for this thread.

I found that whole section (section 6) in the report quite odd.

My understanding is that the reason that there are male traits (e.g. aggression, and later libido) which are shown in stereotypical ways, and by extension female traits, is because of a combination of biology (testosterone or lack of, during various developmentmal stages including childhood) and socialisation. With children, this can manifest itself in which toys children select.

This seems uncontroversial as it makes sense that there would be a biological as well as a socialogical origin behind sex-based stereotypes. However, it's impossible to separate out the impact of nature v nurture in any quantitative way.

Where it gets unhelpful is when Cass refers to these stereotypical male and female behaviour profiles as a "gender identity". Perhaps it's an attempt to try and make sense of the ridiculous list of sex-based stereotypes that are used in the DSM-5 to diagnose gender dysphoria? Either way, it would have been far better if she had explored this without the phrase "gender identity" being used.

Mermaids and stonewall promoted this crap to kids and should face criminal investigation write to MPs and demand it just like they have demanded we stay silent. Also for anyone interested in stories of de transition check out https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCcqbl7mdr74gqA-92muSMaw A rare transexual in as much he believes this is a mental illness and interviews people and discusses all the horrors of this ideology. It’s truly terrifying

Thanks for reposting that clip Alec. It's a while since I saw it, though I still have a visceral recoil reaction whenever Sarah Smith pops up on the news. It's very worth revisiting in the light of the report, and I hope Smith herself has watched it again. I wonder if she'll make any comment. (An apology to GL would be nice but maybe too much to hope for.)

Baahahahhaha.

Yeah. As anyone who understands anything about research even at a fairly basic level had already worked out. But fair play to the BMJ for spelling it out explicitly.

It’s almost like they had their responses ready to go…

Oops. Late to the party! 🥳

Jane Fae’s (late middle age dad who transitioned when daughter was mid GCSEs) laughable response:

https://transactual.org.uk/blog/2024/04/11/press-release-the-cass-review-is-bad-science-and-should-not-be-taken-seriously-by-policymakers/

always worth a re-watch - 11 February 2020

s

Transactual’s hot-take on the Cass report: https://transactual.org.uk/blog/2024/04/11/press-release-the-cass-review-is-bad-science-and-should-not-be-taken-seriously-by-policymakers/

Thanks for that @BreadInCaptivity
This is fantastic!