Hilary Cass Interview in the Times

Sounds like Cass was fucking furious and demanded that she speak to Dawn.

I would be.

DB mea culpa-ed?

I admire anyone who does that.

This is very interesting and kudos to DB. This must surely shake the trust some people who are not fully indoctrinated into only ever supporting Stonewall uncritically.

DB said she spent much of the weekend talking to Dr Hilary Cass ....

x.com/sexmattersorg/status/1782436268745400361?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Well done and thank you @ DawnButlerBrent for correcting the Parliamentary record.

It's concerning that this misinformation came from @ stonewalluk: "...by quoting this briefing, it seems as though I may have inadvertently misled the House"

More or Less Cass Review twiXorial gathered into threaderapp for anyone who finds that easier to read:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1782370155613372761.html

Here is the More or Less thread from today

https://x.com/bbcmoreorless/status/1782370155613372761?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

Did @TheCassReview - the review of NHS gender identity services for under-18s in England - throw out 98% of the available research?

That claim was spreading online before the report was even published.

It is “completely incorrect” says @Hilary_Cass

A More or Less thread.🧵

Cass commissioned @UniOfYork to produce systematic reviews to analyse the available research on puberty blockers and hormone treatment.

adc.bmj.com/content/early/…
adc.bmj.com/content/early/…

Taken together, they looked at 103 scientific papers. They found only two - or around 2% - were high quality. But they also included the moderate research in their conclusions.

3/8

Around 40% - 43 papers - was considered of low quality, and so was not used to form the systematic reviews' conclusions.

4/8

Dr Cass told us she was “angry” that misinformation was spreading about the review.

"Adults who deliberately spread misinformation about this topic are putting young people at risk, and in my view that is unforgivable."

5/8

Cass: "We're certainly not saying that no-one is going to benefit from these treatments, and I myself have spoken to young people who definitely do appear to have benefited."

6/8

Cass: "But what we need to understand is what's happening to the majority of people who've been through these treatments, and we just don't have that data.”

7/8

Cass: "I certainly wouldn't want to embark on a treatment where somebody couldn't tell me with any accuracy what percentage chance there was of it being successful, and what the possibilities were of harms or side effects."

8/8

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0hry4wj

”At this point, given the publicity about ER's and AC's misinformation”

At this point, I am no longer surprised to find either of these people responsible for spreading misinformation. Rather the opposite actually. Particularly after ER’s clangers of late.

'Her team have discounted almost all the evidence gathered on the subject...'

Not read the report or the article in the OP then BH?

Dr Cass has done no such thing. Her team have discounted almost all the evidence gathered on the subject so far

BH, it seems that you're several important updates behind as to the credibility of the perspective that you're posting. At this point, given the publicity about ER's and AC's misinformation and that of others, it's disappointing that the blinkers of ideology are leading people to align themselves with this disinformation. Especially when you claim privileged insight and knowledge so might be keener than the average person on making sure that you understanding the evidence-base for the interventions that you support.

Some resources
Cass' own interviews.
Ben Ryan's work
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1781479415429390445.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1781856791627743657.html

I strongly recommend downloading the free book or audiobook about fair tests and trials and how evidence is evaluated: Testing Treatments

https://en.testingtreatments.org/

For full insight about systematic reviews and meta-analyses there is the Cochrane Handbook (free to access):

https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/part-1

As light reading, I'd invite you to reflect on this, about Freeman and the Oedipus trap.

https://archive.ph/HjXYo

Dr Cass has done no such thing. Her team have discounted almost all the evidence gathered on the subject so far due to not meeting the quality criteria they set and thus their finding is that there isn't enough evidence to endorse a general policy of endocrine intervention without further, more comprehensive research.

This is also misrepresenting the largely ideologically agnostic approach pursued by GIDS, described by Bernadette Wren in detail and widely available.

I'm very sad that Dr Cass doesn't feel safe using public transport due to the threat of receiving daily abuse due to who she is. That's a horrible thing to have to live every day of your life under with no end in sight.

Think I spotted a few nuns mums out celebrating the Cass report's sensible approach to the safeguarding of children in medical practice.

I expect Father Ted is in it up to his neck.

I hope that I am not repeating things as I have not RTFT.

Your anti-depressants argument does not hold up., Because there is good evidence they do work. Your GP may not know which works best for you, so there may be trial and error to find that, but the evidence base behind them working is good. They are not ' throwing drugs at you till you go away'. That is a utterly baseless mischaracterisation.
Its just like there is a solid evidence base that physical activity is good for you. There may be trial and error to find out which PA works for you, but the evidence base of the health benefits of PA are still there.

What Hilary Cass has done is show that principle that GIDs was effectively working to, that children have a gender identity that needs be affirmed, was wrong. They had taken the wrong ideological position. She is clear that there are many reasons why children express gender incongruence and the primary need is to identify those reasons and treat that. And that was not happening.

Furthermore they were giving children interventions where they could not tell the patient if they would work, or the likelihood of this, and where they could not tell the patient what the risks of the treatment were. As Cass herself, that is highly unusual. This is absolutely nothing like your anti-depressants analogy.

Fuck. Rumbled.

Oh it's the Catholics at it again. A few years ago, I saw someone say that the GC movement was started by Catholic nuns in the US in the 80s. I haven't seen it crop up since.
Hands up. How many of you 'mums' are really elderly American nuns?

Freedom of conscience is vital. wrt McCarthyism, one of the most powerful early challenges to McCarthy and McCarthyism was from Margaret Chase Smith with her Declaration of Conscience.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Speeches_Smith_Declaration.htm

Chase Smith's Declaration of Conscience:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/

How long does it take to get the email confirming signature?

Important points made here

We don't know what the evidence suggests - the whole problem is there isn't any. BEcause of ideological resistance to creating it.
Actually unfortunately a lot of healthcare is predicated on feelings. MH care is - your GP will basically ask you what drug you fancy trying for depression or anxiety. I don't think this is right but this is what happens. they don't really know what the outcome will be in you, or why, they just sort of throw prescriptions at you until you go away

People are weird and complicated. We can't have healthcare based on overarching philosophical positions. We need serious careful case by case healthcare. The problem with GIDS was not that it took the wrong ideological position, but that it took one. Kids have definitely been harmed because of this. The gender critical rage and frustration at how badly women and girls have been treated in all this is in danger of calcifying into something genuinely transphobic - a political ideological anti trans stance. I don't blame any of the individuals who got there but I do worry about it

Yes - or she should get a peerage - she would be a huge asset in the House of Lords. Meantime pls sign the petition to REMOVE Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green who has no more right to sit in their than Susie Green.

PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE

https://www.change.org/p/strip-ruth-hunt-of-her-peerage-for-her-role-in-the-gender-medical-scandal

Healthcare is not predicated on feelings, though, no matter how strong or genuine they might be. Healthcare is a science and evidence based pathway.

Much of the evidence suggest, anyway, that even after 'transition' once the initial euphoria has worn off, that the dysphoric feelings and anxieties return. Transition also brings with it many other complications and issues...which are not conducive to good mental health: such as being dependent on others for validation or approval; complications and difficulties in forming romantic relationships and so on.

Or in other words, the correct opposition to thought police isn't OUR thought police - it's freedom of conscience