Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The Cass report - Peer review

177 replies

BeizenderKarneval · 28/05/2025 06:47

There has been some peer review work done on the Cass review, something that a lot of us in the industry knew was problematic but that has been used by government and a number of notably outspoken individuals to justify their hateful positions

The results and conclusions are quite compelling, and I urge you to read them for yourselves:

Critically appraising the cass report: methodological flaws and unsupported claims

I find this section especially interesting:

“It undermines the legal competence of both children and adults to access medical treatment and dismisses almost all existing clinical evidence on trans people’s healthcare by applying impossible evidence standards which, if applied to other medicines would invalidate more than three quarters of the existing treatments used in paediatric care which, like puberty blockers, are currently being prescribed off-label.”

The report’s primary conclusions rest on excluding 98% of the relevant evidence on the safety and efficacy of puberty blockers and hormones for lack of blinding and controls.

What this means is that they require studies in which some patients are given the treatment, and others are unknowingly given placebos.
This is not only a clear breach of medical ethics and monstrous suggestion, but also impossible due to the obviousness of the impacts of puberty blockers and hormones.

The report also strays far beyond its scope and competence in recommending a review of adult services and in suggesting that young people ought to stay under the care of children and young people’s services until the age of 25.
The latter is based on highly questionable understandings of brain development which have been repeatedly debunked as an oversimplification of the constant changes in human neurology over the course of our lives.

This recommendation, especially in a context of an already broken system of care for both adults and children, has the potential to have a significant negative impact on the lives and wellbeing of trans people in the UK.
Underpinning this report is the idea that being trans is an undesirable outcome rather than a natural facet of human diversity.

This is clear not only from the recommendations but also from the exclusion of trans researchers from the design of the review process and the links individual members of the research team have to anti-trans groups, which the Cass team were warned about.

I look forward to an interesting dialogue.

Critically appraising the cass report: methodological flaws and unsupported claims - BMC Medical Research Methodology

Background The Cass Review aimed to provide recommendations for the delivery of services for gender diverse children and young people in England. The final product of this project, the Cass report, relied on commissioned research output, including quan...

https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
8
KnottyAuty · 08/06/2025 19:57

NeedMoreTinfoil · 08/06/2025 19:26

I have got a reply - probably bog standard template.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to enable people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. The Foundation does not endorse political candidates, or have an agenda other than our mission. The idea of a neutral point of view is one of our core principles.

Wikipedia is a global project managed by tens of thousands of volunteers from around the world. Many people do not know this, but the Wikimedia Foundation does not control or edit the content of Wikipedia. We are here primarily to provide infrastructure and support the volunteer community. They are people from virtually all walks of life, who edit and contribute every day, and they reflect a vast number of viewpoints. There is no central editorial board; all edits are made by individual members of the Wikipedia community.

The volunteer editors appreciate hearing viewpoints about content, and value input from readers that can help improve the quality of information. If you have specific corrections or facts to offer, volunteers require citations or facts from reliable, high-quality sources to review and improve the information. You can learn more about how misinformation is addressed on Wikipedia in .

Wikipedia volunteers are strongly focused on the editorial values of non-censorship, neutrality, verifiability, and what is termed 'no original research.' All volunteers invested in the quality of Wikipedia are working collectively to build balanced, neutral articles that reflect a variety of perspectives on often complex, high-profile topics. Content and information can change quickly to reflect world events and new facts.

Clicking on the 'View history' tab of an article will display the edit history of that article with associated comments. For controversial or contested articles, clicking on the Talk Page can often provide more context about how the article was created, and will show any debates among the editors.

For any further questions about Wikipedia content or guidelines, please contact [email protected], an email address answered by longtime project editors with vast editorial experience.

Obviously I was already aware that the content was volunteer created and maintained. My instinct is to reply and tell Wikipedia that as hosts THEY are ultimately responsible for the content on the site. But that I will engage on a couple of the most egregious points and see what happens. If nothing then I expect Wikipedia management to intervene. My irritation point (apart from regular use of the words "terf" and "cisgender") is the complete lack of acknowledgement of the threats and violence used against anyone standing up against transgender ideology, whereas there is a long paragraph on attacks on transgender people. If anyone has any detailed refutations of other Wiki errors with sources, let me know.

I will pm you

NeedMoreTinfoil · 08/06/2025 19:26

NeedMoreTinfoil · 30/05/2025 12:01

I have now, thanks to your timely kick up the bum 😁I'll let everyone know if I get a reply.

I have got a reply - probably bog standard template.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to enable people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. The Foundation does not endorse political candidates, or have an agenda other than our mission. The idea of a neutral point of view is one of our core principles.

Wikipedia is a global project managed by tens of thousands of volunteers from around the world. Many people do not know this, but the Wikimedia Foundation does not control or edit the content of Wikipedia. We are here primarily to provide infrastructure and support the volunteer community. They are people from virtually all walks of life, who edit and contribute every day, and they reflect a vast number of viewpoints. There is no central editorial board; all edits are made by individual members of the Wikipedia community.

The volunteer editors appreciate hearing viewpoints about content, and value input from readers that can help improve the quality of information. If you have specific corrections or facts to offer, volunteers require citations or facts from reliable, high-quality sources to review and improve the information. You can learn more about how misinformation is addressed on Wikipedia in .

Wikipedia volunteers are strongly focused on the editorial values of non-censorship, neutrality, verifiability, and what is termed 'no original research.' All volunteers invested in the quality of Wikipedia are working collectively to build balanced, neutral articles that reflect a variety of perspectives on often complex, high-profile topics. Content and information can change quickly to reflect world events and new facts.

Clicking on the 'View history' tab of an article will display the edit history of that article with associated comments. For controversial or contested articles, clicking on the Talk Page can often provide more context about how the article was created, and will show any debates among the editors.

For any further questions about Wikipedia content or guidelines, please contact [email protected], an email address answered by longtime project editors with vast editorial experience.

Obviously I was already aware that the content was volunteer created and maintained. My instinct is to reply and tell Wikipedia that as hosts THEY are ultimately responsible for the content on the site. But that I will engage on a couple of the most egregious points and see what happens. If nothing then I expect Wikipedia management to intervene. My irritation point (apart from regular use of the words "terf" and "cisgender") is the complete lack of acknowledgement of the threats and violence used against anyone standing up against transgender ideology, whereas there is a long paragraph on attacks on transgender people. If anyone has any detailed refutations of other Wiki errors with sources, let me know.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

KnottyAuty · 07/06/2025 22:13

Thanks for linking to this podcast. I’ve whipped through it on 1.25 speed. Absolutely riveting! I’m on the penultimate episode. Highly recommend

Helleofabore · 06/06/2025 07:02

This might be of interest to people who read this thread too. The Protocol series by NY Times was released overnight.

I think it will be widely discussed, I noticed that some well known extreme transgender activists have tried to get out articles to discredit it before it was released.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5349427-the-protocol-series-by-new-york-times

The Protocol series by New York Times | Mumsnet

This series has been released today. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdMrbgYfVl-uRbb-KAAkSNzi_gHzQAX2d&si=WP74bzzXQQRAPKQn *The Protocol is...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5349427-the-protocol-series-by-new-york-times

ArabellaScott · 06/06/2025 06:57

The kids started off as roughly okay, same as all other kids, and after two years of this incredibly important if potentially sterilising and dangerous medication, they remained roughly okay.

Although the results vary significantly between the sexes.

KnottyAuty · 06/06/2025 06:50

Depression symptoms, emotional health and CBCL constructs did not change significantly over 24 months. At no time points were the means of depression, emotional health or CBCL constructs in a clinically concerning range.

Conclusion Participants initiating medical interventions for gender dysphoria with GnRHas have self- and parent-reported psychological and emotional health comparable with the population of adolescents at large, which remains relatively stable over 24 months. Given that the mental health of youth with gender dysphoria who are older is often poor, it is likely that puberty blockers prevent the deterioration of mental health.

Am I reading this right?

  1. Participants (those with gender dysphoria) were not any more or less depressed than the general population?
  2. Participants’ mental health was never observed to be in a “concerning” range?

Which I take to mean - no super high suicide rate to start with or at any time in the 2 years?

Olsen must have been disappointed with those findings - surely this creates a few more problems for the NHS Study?

ArabellaScott · 06/06/2025 06:45

'Study limitations include that more than half of the participants had initiated gender-affirming hormones over the 24-month follow up period, limiting our ability to examine puberty suppression as monotherapy.'

Hm. It seems pretty thin.

ArabellaScott · 06/06/2025 06:35

They do attempt.to compare mental health to the general populace, but as noted the scales used to measure are different, plus that doesn't compare those claiming trans identity or gender dysphoria, so it's a bit meaningless.

Helleofabore · 06/06/2025 06:35

Igneococcus · 06/06/2025 06:33

I've only read the summary of the conclusions at this point, but it seems the "control group" is the rest of all adolescents? Not a group of kids with dysphoria that aren't getting medical interventions but counseling?
First thing I ask any lab student in every experiment is "where are your controls?"

Yes. This was my immediate thought too.

Igneococcus · 06/06/2025 06:33

I've only read the summary of the conclusions at this point, but it seems the "control group" is the rest of all adolescents? Not a group of kids with dysphoria that aren't getting medical interventions but counseling?
First thing I ask any lab student in every experiment is "where are your controls?"

ArabellaScott · 06/06/2025 06:29

I think the claim is they would probably have been a whole.lot worse without the drugs. But without a control group, I don't see how they can make that claim.

This is also of note:

'Designated sex at birth was a significant predictor of baseline withdrawn depressed scores β= −4.58, 95% CI: (−8.08, −1.13), with those assigned male at birth having significantly lower baseline mean withdrawn depressed scores than those assigned female at birth. In addition, designated sex at birth was a significant predictor of change in several domains of the CBCL.'

Who knew.

Igneococcus · 06/06/2025 06:23

'Depression symptoms, emotional health and CBCL constructs did not change significantly over 24 months' does not surprise me.

So they administer drugs and surgery with massive health implications for the body for what exactly?

ArabellaScott · 06/06/2025 06:18

I mean, I didn't expect them to ever publish.

This:

'Depression symptoms, emotional health and CBCL constructs did not change significantly over 24 months' does not surprise me.

ArabellaScott · 06/06/2025 06:16

Oh gosh, didn't expect that!

Helleofabore · 06/06/2025 06:12

unwashedanddazed · 28/05/2025 08:04

OP you seem like an awfully clever industry insider. Do you think you can persuade Johanna Olsen-Kennedy to stop withholding the findings of her 7 million dollar, longitudinal study into puberty blockers?

I'm sure it'll put all our minds at rest, providing all that much sought evidence.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.14.25327614v1

Look at what has become available?

The Olsen-Kennedy study. That didn’t show improvement at all but tried to position the findings as ‘preventing deterioration ‘ of mental health.

Mental and Emotional Health of Youth after 24 months of Gender-Affirming Medical Care Initiated with Pubertal Suppression

Background and Objectives Medical interventions for youth with gender dysphoria can include the use of gonadotropin releasing hormone analogs (GnRHas) for suppression of endogenous puberty. This analysis aimed to understand the impact of medical interv...

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.14.25327614v1

SinnerBoy · 30/05/2025 18:00

KnottyAuty · 29/05/2025 13:19

Well it is a problem. Here I have to admit to bending the rules - I once tried to make a correction to my own entry 🤫 And someone decided they knew the facts better and changed it back 🤣 So it is possibly an endless task of bullshit detecting

I had something similar, about 15 years ago. Their entry on a family and business had incorrect names, a marriage between two people who weren't and some birth dates wrong.

One of my aunts and her boyfriend spent two years tracing family, back to my Gran's paternal great grandfather. I was sitting with the family tree, when I wrote an email.

I got a snotty reply that I was wrong.

NeedMoreTinfoil · 30/05/2025 12:01

TangenitalContrivences · 29/05/2025 22:01

I do hope, genuinely, you were able to tell them somehow that that’s why you stoped giving them money.

I have now, thanks to your timely kick up the bum 😁I'll let everyone know if I get a reply.

ArabellaScott · 30/05/2025 07:12

TheKhakiQuail · 30/05/2025 04:59

Even for precocious puberty there have been articles raising concern due to some young people experiencing severe side effects (bone related conditions).

There is a huge class lawsuit ongoing in the US over the use of Lupron for precocious puberty.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/

TheKhakiQuail · 30/05/2025 05:02

TangenitalContrivences · 29/05/2025 22:02

Honestly I’m normally very shouty, thought I’d try something different. Hope it landed!

also
know just what you mean :)

Regardless of the attitude, they get some credit for being willing to present an opinion somewhere they know it is not going to be popular, listen to the evidence presented in response, and changing their opinion if the facts warrant it.

TheKhakiQuail · 30/05/2025 04:59

JasmineAllen · 28/05/2025 09:30

Thank you for posting this. Obviously I knew the use of PB (except in exteme circumstances like precocious puberty) were not backed up with solid, scientific evidence and end up causing more harm than good, but I'd forgotten all the reports worldwide that came to the same or similar conclusions to Cass.
If nothing else your post and this thread has reminded me 😊

Even for precocious puberty there have been articles raising concern due to some young people experiencing severe side effects (bone related conditions).

TangenitalContrivences · 29/05/2025 22:02

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 29/05/2025 17:09

The whole

‘what do you make of this you hateful bigots?’

’wait, why is everyone being so mean to me?’

dynamic is puzzling. You are very kind to explain to chappie that it’s not necessarily a winning strategy for stimulating intellectual debate

Honestly I’m normally very shouty, thought I’d try something different. Hope it landed!

also
know just what you mean :)

TangenitalContrivences · 29/05/2025 22:01

NeedMoreTinfoil · 29/05/2025 21:16

I use Wiki for a LOT of research (on non-contentious stuff) but stopped financially supporting them when I realised their gender info seemed very biased. That was one of the things - along with men intruding into women's sport - that irked me enough to start educating myself on what was happening to children and to women's spaces and rights. And here I am, a bit late to the party but fired up to fight for what is rightfully ours.

I do hope, genuinely, you were able to tell them somehow that that’s why you stoped giving them money.

LeftieRightsHoarder · 29/05/2025 21:42

Zita60 · 28/05/2025 08:03

@BeizenderKarneval What this means is that they require studies in which some patients are given the treatment, and others are unknowingly given placebos.
This is not only a clear breach of medical ethics and monstrous suggestion...

But this is the way that medical and scientific research is done. Some participants in a study are given the drug under test, and some are given placebos.

How do you think a new drug that could potentially treat a particular form of cancer is tested? Some patients get the drug, and others get a placebo. All participants know that this is how the study will be conducted.

During the study, no-one knows who received the drug and who got the placebo, neither the patients nor the researchers who assess whether each patient has improved. Only after the results are collected is the trial unblinded, so the researchers can see whether there is a difference in outcome between those who got the drug and those who got the placebo.

This is the only way you can tell whether the drug is effective or not. It's not a breach of medical ethics, it's the way medical research is done, and effective treatments are found. Most of us have benefited from this kind of research during our lives.

Yes, that was pretty clear evidence that Karneval doesn’t know much about medical research!

TENSsion · 29/05/2025 21:19

2025- the year when people being concerned about mentally unwell children being sterilised is “hateful”.