Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

News commentary on the Cass Report

393 replies

HagoftheNorth · 10/04/2024 07:29

Thread to record where and when to find tv/radio commentary on the Cass report, so that it is easy for people to find it on catchup. If you’re listening/watching and it comes up, please record the channel/show and the time

OP posts:
Thread gallery
67
whoami24601 · 16/04/2024 21:29

Datun · 16/04/2024 16:08

Just a thought here, but as Transactivists become increasingly discredited as pushers of quackology, the media 'rent-a-quote' gravy train and media opportunities are liable to dry up slowly but surely.

Absolutely. You'd have to be totally unconcerned about your credibility to invite say, India Willoughby now. Whereas before, Willoughby was on with Piers Morgan and Loose Women, etc.

Now Willoughby's back catalogue is so bonkers, most broadcasters wouldn't risk it in a serious piece.

Same with Monroe Bergdorf. Not just the way Bergdorf off looks now, but also, all the odd remarks about racism, lesbians, child safeguarding, the lot.

Frankly, I can't think of anyone else, either. TRAs advocate for no debate, for a very good reason.

India Willoughby has just this week been announced as patron of Keighley Cougars with a 'proud' Facebook announcement 🙄 Tone. Deaf. Though the comments are heartening at least. Fans are NOT impressed.

KellieJaysLapdog · 16/04/2024 20:49

Just started listening to this, should be good Winston Mumford & Sons is well informed on
the issues (I was surprised how much homework he must’ve done before interviewing Helen Joyce and his recent episode re WPATH files was excellent) and from the first couple of minutes in Andrew Doyle is FUCKING FUMING! As angry as Dennis Kavanagh, I reckon!

"Gender Medicine is Un-evidenced!" The Cass Review w/ Andrew Doyle | The Winston Marshall Show #014

Andrew Doyle has been one of the leading journalists in Britain covering the gender wars and trans issues. We sat down to discuss Hillary Cass' recently publ...

https://youtu.be/mSxnxuT3IMk?si=QEObted0UXdapQtl

Datun · 16/04/2024 17:39

KellieJaysLapdog · 16/04/2024 11:34

Naw, Stone/Slater is the flabby shut-in with a blonde combover, a Black Country accent and a ‘Slavic girlfriend’ - likes to tweet about penis in the ladies lavatories but there is no evidence that Stone ever leaves the house.

Easy mistake to make though - there are so many unsavoury characters on Team TRA!

Yeah. The impression is really strong that the guy's never been in a ladies toilet in his life. Despite all the fantasy posting.

KellieJaysLapdog · 16/04/2024 16:16

I accidentally stumbled across a recent Juno Dawson red carpet photo a couple of days back.

It deffo gave me ‘probably not the school librarian’s favourite speaker nowadays’ vibes!

(It’s a SFW picture, the ‘sensitive content’ filter is purely for dramatic effect!)

Sensitive content
News commentary on the Cass Report
Datun · 16/04/2024 16:08

Just a thought here, but as Transactivists become increasingly discredited as pushers of quackology, the media 'rent-a-quote' gravy train and media opportunities are liable to dry up slowly but surely.

Absolutely. You'd have to be totally unconcerned about your credibility to invite say, India Willoughby now. Whereas before, Willoughby was on with Piers Morgan and Loose Women, etc.

Now Willoughby's back catalogue is so bonkers, most broadcasters wouldn't risk it in a serious piece.

Same with Monroe Bergdorf. Not just the way Bergdorf off looks now, but also, all the odd remarks about racism, lesbians, child safeguarding, the lot.

Frankly, I can't think of anyone else, either. TRAs advocate for no debate, for a very good reason.

afternoonoflife · 16/04/2024 16:06

there are so many unsavoury characters on Team TRA!

Ain’t that the truth.
“Is that the one who used to wear his mother’s underwear?”
“No that’s A. B wore his sister’s underwear.”
”Is that the one who said TERFs should be raped?“
“No that’s C. D said TERFs should be raped and killed.”
”Is that the one who said JKR was basically Hitler?”
“No that’s E, this is F who said JKR was a Holocaust denier.”
“Was that the one who encouraged children to contact them privately online, whilst being an ambassador to a children’s charity?”
”No that was G, this is H who wore a rubber suit under his clothes whilst working at a children’s charity.”

Etc etc.

KellieJaysLapdog · 16/04/2024 11:34

CantDealwithChristmas · 16/04/2024 11:15

Oh is he the guy who assulted women in female changing rooms and planned to burn down women's houses?

Naw, Stone/Slater is the flabby shut-in with a blonde combover, a Black Country accent and a ‘Slavic girlfriend’ - likes to tweet about penis in the ladies lavatories but there is no evidence that Stone ever leaves the house.

Easy mistake to make though - there are so many unsavoury characters on Team TRA!

CantDealwithChristmas · 16/04/2024 11:15

KellieJaysLapdog · 15/04/2024 23:37

😃

Just went to archive that one for posterity (because it’s gonna age like milk) and was pleased to see someone else had already archived it.

’Gemma Stone’ has a thread on the farms, btw.

Oh is he the guy who assulted women in female changing rooms and planned to burn down women's houses?

KellieJaysLapdog · 16/04/2024 10:18

I suspect S’Whittle is just rewriting history in order to make excuses for TRA failure.

Can’t possibly be their batshittery going too far that caused the whole thing to implode, must’ve been shadowy figures funded by American White Supremacist Christians - Stephen Whittle hasn’t been invited anywhere NEAR parliament for over a decade, honest guv!

theilltemperedclavecinist · 16/04/2024 10:13

Hmmmm. Maybe Whittle is including Freedman, Sullivan and the famously powerful and influential Stock. Or imaginary religious conservative tory party donors.

KellieJaysLapdog · 16/04/2024 10:01

And 2020?

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/2998/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

Or is S’Whittle referring to not getting any special secret conversations after 2010?

Because S’Whittle has clearly been given public opportunities to converse with government ministers, the evidence is all over the internet!

News commentary on the Cass Report
KellieJaysLapdog · 16/04/2024 09:55

theilltemperedclavecinist · 16/04/2024 09:44

I have a question about the Whittle piece in the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/13/veteran-trans-campaigner-cass-review-has-potential-for-positive-change

Who is Whittle talking about here?

...organisations he described as anti-trans had undue influence on government and officials, he said. “Since 2010 I’ve not been included in one conversation with government, none of us have. But these other people are sitting round the table and enjoying their power. I think aspects of the Cass report were heavily influenced by the fear of these people and pressure from them.”

Has Whittle forgotten 2015?

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

News commentary on the Cass Report
RethinkingLife · 16/04/2024 09:54

theilltemperedclavecinist · 16/04/2024 09:44

I have a question about the Whittle piece in the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/13/veteran-trans-campaigner-cass-review-has-potential-for-positive-change

Who is Whittle talking about here?

...organisations he described as anti-trans had undue influence on government and officials, he said. “Since 2010 I’ve not been included in one conversation with government, none of us have. But these other people are sitting round the table and enjoying their power. I think aspects of the Cass report were heavily influenced by the fear of these people and pressure from them.”

No idea and you'll note that Whittle didn't have to include any evidence.

After all, young things like Jess Bradley and Aimée Challenor were invited to contribute to lots (Miller committee). As were older representatives such Jane Fae, Shona Faye et al.

Oh, hang on, a theme is emerging, what do all those invitees have in common. Sheila Jeffreys work on sex castes may be relevant here on the relative invisibility of transmen in more recent public narratives. tl;dr Transwomen are the apex and transmen have lower status even than women in sex caste analysis.

CantDealwithChristmas · 16/04/2024 09:49

RedToothBrush · 10/04/2024 19:19

Just a thought here, but as Transactivists become increasingly discredited as pushers of quackology, the media 'rent-a-quote' gravy train and media opportunities are liable to dry up slowly but surely.

Pages behind catching up on this thread but this is a very good point. And also, good news, as the only rent-a-gobs left will be the unhinged and the obviously AGP, like Freda 'drunk on stage and showing me undies' Wallace

theilltemperedclavecinist · 16/04/2024 09:44

I have a question about the Whittle piece in the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/13/veteran-trans-campaigner-cass-review-has-potential-for-positive-change

Who is Whittle talking about here?

...organisations he described as anti-trans had undue influence on government and officials, he said. “Since 2010 I’ve not been included in one conversation with government, none of us have. But these other people are sitting round the table and enjoying their power. I think aspects of the Cass report were heavily influenced by the fear of these people and pressure from them.”

RethinkingLife · 16/04/2024 09:35

KellieJaysLapdog · 16/04/2024 09:25

Novara can’t really think Gemma Stone/Kirsty Slater is a ‘journalist’? The article published is too shit for even the shittiest of student zines!

“The Cass Review was hyped as the nail in the coffin for a lawless cult of child mutilators. After all that, what we got was a 400-page GCSE sociology essay that ignored decades of research in favour of pure vibes. How embarrassing.”

Proper DARVO-y, that ^
Stone is so fucking cringey, like listening to an earnest 6th former wanging on about being a vegan when you know they had a bacon sandwich at their mums this morning.

Cursed E will, no doubt, be back to full time data entry shortly. The well of £50 an article media gigs will rapidly dry up once the ‘lawless cult of child mutilators’ are pushed back out of medicine, law and politics.

Harry Frankfurt wrote about this phenomenon. It's expedient for Novara to publish a 'hit' piece, whatever their thoughts are, they're catering to an audience.

Philosopher Harry Frankfurt first published "On Bullshit" in the Raritan Quarterly Review in 1986, and it appeared again two years later in a collection of his essays, The Importance of What We Care About. And then it sat quietly for 17 years before Princeton University Press brought it out in a slender, stand-alone volume that became an unexpected best-seller.

While "On Bullshit" certainly felt timely in 2005 (and, presumably, to the handful of people who first read it in the '80s), it's grown more relevant with each passing year, and it's now one of the defining texts of our era. I recommend it in its entirety, but I think the closing pages are essential reading for any citizen of the 21st century:

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. [pp 55-56]

Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for telling the truth in the same way that bullshitting tends to. Through excessive indulgence in the latter activity, which involves making assertions without paying attention to anything except what it suits one to say, a person’s normal habit of attending to the way things are may become attenuated or lost. Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the respond of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands. The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are. [pp 59-61]

The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These "antirealist" doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.

But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial—notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit. [pp 64-67]"

https://www.edbatista.com/2020/03/on-bullshit.html

KellieJaysLapdog · 16/04/2024 09:25

Novara can’t really think Gemma Stone/Kirsty Slater is a ‘journalist’? The article published is too shit for even the shittiest of student zines!

“The Cass Review was hyped as the nail in the coffin for a lawless cult of child mutilators. After all that, what we got was a 400-page GCSE sociology essay that ignored decades of research in favour of pure vibes. How embarrassing.”

Proper DARVO-y, that ^
Stone is so fucking cringey, like listening to an earnest 6th former wanging on about being a vegan when you know they had a bacon sandwich at their mums this morning.

Cursed E will, no doubt, be back to full time data entry shortly. The well of £50 an article media gigs will rapidly dry up once the ‘lawless cult of child mutilators’ are pushed back out of medicine, law and politics.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 16/04/2024 08:55

Which is worse for Novara Media's credibility here - they do know about this individual's proclivities and don't care, or they published this without ensuring they knew something about this 'journalist'? Mind you, I'm not sure Novara has any credibility to lose.

RedToothBrush · 16/04/2024 08:01

Datun · 16/04/2024 06:54

Good grief. What a wanker.

By the sound of it, quite literally a wanker. A wanker in women's toilets no less. Who uses the toilets as a way to get at those who use the toilets. Great example about how it's NOT 'just wanting to pee' it's about using any abusing the women who use the toilets and an outlet for misogynistic belief.

Datun · 16/04/2024 06:54

BoreOfWhabylon · 16/04/2024 00:24

Good grief. What a wanker.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 16/04/2024 06:24

TomPinch · 16/04/2024 01:44

Lol, no, I mean the discussion on this board isn't one-sided! I'm not expecting to be called a transphobe here.

Ahhh! That makes much more sense, yes. Although we do sometimes still get called transphobes here.

TomPinch · 16/04/2024 01:44

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 15/04/2024 20:56

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the discussion in Canada isn't one sided?

Are we talking about the same Canada?

You're not talking about, I don't know, a city named Canada in a non insane country?

Lol, no, I mean the discussion on this board isn't one-sided! I'm not expecting to be called a transphobe here.

UtopiaPlanitia · 15/04/2024 23:56

That is a fascinating website – thank you for posting the link.

The comments on the Cass Review, that are provided for the use of journalists, were very positive about the review’s evidential rigour.

KellieJaysLapdog · 15/04/2024 23:49

UtopiaPlanitia · 15/04/2024 22:38

Journalist Jesse Singal tweeting about the CBC article regarding the Cass Review:

twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1779893479667081340

1/ The Cass Review explains, in detail, why we need to trust systematic reviews over both doctors' anecdotal evidence and low-quality standards published by professional associations. The CBC responds by publishing an article that cites professional associations and is dominated by doctors' anecdotal accounts.

2/ This might be the worst bit:
"Surveys and interviews are considered low-quality evidence in medicine, said [Pediatrician Dr. Tehseen Ladha], but that might be misleading to the general public. 'Many people would see low-quality evidence and think well, that means this could harm our children. But that's not what it means.' "

That's... exactly what low-quality evidence for a major intervention means. It means we don't know if the intervention offers a net benefit, because the true effects might differ significantly from what the studies in question present.

3/ Stuff like this isn't just the normal incompetence and sloppiness that plagues this subject. It is critically dangerous science miscommunication disseminated by the most important outlet in Canada. It's absolutely inexcusable and has to stop.

4/ Just wanna be clear about this: Let's say "low-quality" studies seem to tell us that an intervention improves things .5 points on a 10-point scale for patients. Doesn't matter what you're measuring. What that means, to oversimplify, is that we don't have confidence the intervention in question will actually have that effect on people. It could be higher, but it could be lower, changing the direction of the sign entirely.

I'd argue more structural forces within science publishing nudge us toward overstating rather than understating benefits, but whether or not you agree, the idea of this intervention being harmful is absolutely on the table in this sort of situation. The CBC is spreading rank BS here -- it's so, so bad. I don't understand how this keeps happening.

Your post/Jesse Singal’s commentary reminded me of the existence of ‘Science Media Centre’ (housed in the Wellcome Collection, whatever ‘housed’ means!) which I first came across during the Archie Battersbee court cases. It’s aim is to generate accurate, non-misleading quotes from relevant scientists for the press to use rapidly whenever a science story hits mainstream media.

here’s the topics from the last few days:

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/

Science Media Centre

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/

Swipe left for the next trending thread