Cass Review 'flawed' according to Yale Law School?

I'm trying to find more info on the Yale Law school challenge to the Cass Review. Talking to someone finally open to questioning the narrative (early peaking) out of a Grauniad bubble, but also saying 'I heard Cass review was biased though (Yale)'. Can anyone point me to any good sources analysing the Yale piece/background please?
Or just more thoughts from the wise ones here on how best to discuss this one.
There are good points already made on this thread, but just wondering if there is any more that's clearer to grasp especially for someone very newly questioning.
I don't understand how Yale are criticising Cass's methodology (I'm not a research expert!)- and how their own bias plays into this- So any help with this would be much appreciated.
Was hoping someone like Eliza Mondegreen might have something but can't find it if she has.

One of the biggest criticisms of the Cass Report is that it didn't ask Trans what they wanted the facts to be.

If my doctor is about to treat me for something serious I don't need the opinion of some activists in another country on whether my treatment would suit someone else's agenda.

It's about my well-being.

Just as Cass is about the well-being of the children and not the future of special interest groups.

100% agree;

almost all of the pro-"gender affirming care for children" lobby are basing their veiws on male-to-female experiences

yet the crisis is in gender experiences of teen females

Not surprising in people who think mammals can change sex. But why does anyone think WPATH has any credibility?

Embarrassing for Yale, which is generally considered reputable, to have its name attached to this ideological nonsense.

American activists need to stay in their damn lane.

It became apparent that WPATH 'experts' were not even aware what a 'systematic review' was, nor what entailed.

They can't provide that evidence - their goal is to undermine any criticism that they don't have it.

Surely the solution to a report stating there was no evidence to suggest a benefit would be to provide the studies showing the evidence of a benefit?

Interesting to consider one of the dysfunctional thinking patterns in people, with a key one being: it isn't true or over unless I like and agree with what you said. Often seen in conversations where you explain and explain and explain but it doesn't go in due to incapacity to accept disliked/unwanted information.

It doesn't matter that it's true/ crucial/ evidence of harm, it's a case of 'me no likey'.

It seems to be orthodoxy among activists that Cass did a bad job because the report didn’t find in favour of PB and transitioning children - the activists all quote each other saying the Cass Review did a bad job but I haven’t seen any serious medical bodies disagreeing with the findings by means of reasoned argument from evidence.

Thanks Utopia. The stance from the UCU is very interesting, isn’t it. It shows an organisation that has prioritised one particular group. It does not bode well for the quality of work done by universities in the UK.

The UCU, as it seems other organisations, are parroting that line of ‘too high a standard’ while ignoring the words directly from Dr Cass that she did indeed consider the studies and had not rejected them. She just put higher reliance on studies that were more rigorous.

The parroting of that one sentiment, while never producing a very clear analysis on exactly where she apparently was incorrect, is very concerning. Have I missed the very clear and detailed analysis that refutes her findings on the point of weak evidence? I have not been around much lately.

Thanks for the access to this. Highly concerning stuff. I really wonder what the point of Uni is if they can't produce people able to sit down and read, and critically engage with a text.

The determination of these people to to influence children well below the age of consent is very telling. It can only be successful if responsible adults and institutions collude in removing / eroding the safeguarding of children.
When adults hold the line and insist that children must be protected from age inappropriate sexualised issues and that they must not make decisions impacting on their long term future until they are able to give informed consent, children remain safe.

There are no groups of children that society exempts from safeguarding. Long overdue for trans activists and their allies to understand this.

Article of interest to the thread:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/anger-over-ucus-anti-scientific-fight-against-cass-review

Archive version for non-subscribers:
https://archive.ph/L6eP8

i mean... thats how reviews work though? you identify weaknesses or areas in your work with less rigor, and then groups also identify those areas because they are literally the weakest areas?

Yes, this. There's not a great crossover.

Are these legal scholars criticising a clinical research process?

I would not consult a paediatrician if I had a legal problem. And I would not take my child to a lawyer to assess a clinical problem.

Clinical academics are (usually) not qualified to review legal research methods. Legal academics are (usually) not qualified to review clinical research methods. (“Usually” because there are people who are both legally and clinically qualified.)

Worth looking at how Cass explained the raised suggested 'problems' with the report to the HoC. And then looking at the groups who raise these problems, and why the report is so very inconvenient to them.

McFadden was on R4 this morning and was asked about how Labour would work with a certain political stripe if elected in France on immigration. Correctly, he said it's for other countries to elect their leaders, and they would have to work with whoever the French elect.

Well, in this country, our politicians commissioned an expert review. And it was delivered. And accepted by the Tories and (largely by) Labour. It was also discussed in Parliament, where we saw the more in depth views.

I'm pretty sure we could have plenty to say about how they run their affairs, especially where health is concerned (!). But why would we? Perhaps the US academics should focus a bit more on their own country rather than attacking ours.

The Alabama case has cited CASS a lot and I assume all the other states defending action in this area will too, so its not surprising that activists will try to undermine it. I don't think that they credibly can. In fact from what I am seeing the case for affirming is getting weaker and weaker.

These people seem absolutely intent on telling children there is a certain type of body you should have if you feel you are a boy, or a girl. Why can't a boy just be a "boy" in a female body? Doesn't that go against gender inclusivity?

How are they not called TERFs etc?

If you google each of the names of the project contributors and the word 'trans', every single one of them is making money off of being a trans 'expert' in their field.

Hugely embarrassing for Yale to be associated with such a biased, pre-determined outcome.

Yes.

All their work is about 'gender affirming care' for minors. I wonder who they get funding from?

law.yale.edu/centers-workshops/integrity-project/publications