Hilary Cass sent a document to every single MP and Peer, justifying and defending the puberty blockers trial

As I already mentioned upthread a good many medical treatments come with serious risks & side effects so this is no different. The reason why its ethical is because of the trade offs involved. I know HRT might give me a stroke, heart attack or cancer but from my point of view there's no point of living without quality of life.

As long as the goalposts can keep moving, the experiment can continue. If the goalposts stay still for too long, common sense creeps in and lots of people notice that it's mad to experiment on children given what's at stake for their future mental and physical health.

Moving them around creates just enough confusion for just enough decision makers to say that they back the trial, even if they feel uncomfortable. Some don't feel uncomfortable at all and seem oblivious to the goalposts moving. Others will be actively moving them.

For clarity, my comment is about goalposts moving around in general. The PP who is making comments where the net effect is that the goalposts have moved may not be aware that this is what's happening here. Equally, they might. Either way, the goalposts have moved and it's helpful to have it in this thread.

Question to @Tottenhamhotflushes : do you agree that the goalposts moved in the way Aims described?

confirmed diagnosis of gender incongruence

Now explain THAT without using sexist stereotypes applied to children.

From what I have read the candidates must have a confirmed diagnosis of gender incongruence that has been persistently experienced for at least 2 years & pass comprehensive physical (e.g., bone density check) and mental health assessments.

Perhaps revealing other details of qualification preferences risks patient privacy or maybe they left it more open to assess which kind of candidates were most likely to benefit.

I suspect the ideal candidates are the Jazz Jennings and Jackie Greens of this world, whose parents wholeheartedly support the ideas that map to section 8 of the Cass Report, meaning that the child has grown up with a strong belief in the inateness of their gender identity. That's the section that delves into the "science" of gender identity, including toy selection like dolls.

As a non-believer in gender identity I eye-rolled a lot when I read that section.

Well you're the one suggesting GIDS staff were using correct self selection & screening. You are moving so many goalposts in your posts that I think you are losing track.

persistently, insistently & consistently

I knew this would be the answer. So what about the detransitioners who were persistent, insistent and consistent?

Of course there's no certainty

That means you are sterilising children with no certainty that it is helping them. Is that ethically acceptable?

Exactly. And why do they also acknowledge that there is no way to achieve this reliably?

From the dogs breakfast that GIDS was I wouldn't take any of their conclusions seriously so they hardly qualify as reliable arbiters on the issue nor were they conducting a methodically sound study.

"According to Cass"? There is no evidence for this. This is what the trial is for.

@Tottenhamhotflushes So I suspect the Cass trials are carefully vetting their candidates similarly.

This is one of the points that people raise though. If Cass et al believe that they have found a way to identify children that will become 'true trans' adults, why aren't they sharing that methodology prior to the trial?

Yes, it might. Equally it might be the inevitable result of an affirmation pathway, where the patient is told that they can take this as a next step to address their distress, if that feels right for them, and that anyone who expresses concerns needs to back off because they are not respecting the patient's autonomy.

What are you talking about? You suggested puberty blockers cause continuing on to cross sex hormones. I said there is no proof of that.

Other studies in Scandinavian countries have indicated that selecting candidates who have persistently, insistently & consistently maintained GD long term are more likely to maintain trans gender identity throughout their life. So I suspect the Cass trials are carefully vetting their candidates similarly.

Of course there's no certainty so allowing more time is always a plus because its a strong indicator that the individual isn't 'going through a temporary phase'. That these candidates are continuing on is probably because they were likely to maintain their trans identity in the first place…& selected for this reason.

Th evidence on desistance indicates a very small percentage & their existence might well be because of poor screening.

To be fair, there is such a thing to those who believe in it.

Just like god exists to those who believe he does.

People do all sorts of things, including things that can impact their own and their children's bodies based on their beliefs. Take the Jonestown (Christian) mass suicide, FGM or other religiously-informed choices on blood transfusions or circumcision for example.

The difference here is that the NHS is enabling and delivering it as an intervention. They allow parents to refuse blood transfusions for children on religious grounds but I can't think of any case where the NHS will do an active intervention that supports a belief.

Exactly. If gender is a social construct, how can anyone have an innate identity that matches what has been socially constructed? Pure luck?

”My innate identity is to like trucks and dinosaurs, so lucky that society has constructed a gender that fits that!”

No, even the GIDS staff accepted that this was unlikely to be the case given the very difficult conditions that they were working under which meant that they were unable to give each child they attention they deserved. It is worth remembering that many of these children had been referred from CAMHS, and the GIDS staff mistakenly asumed that this meant they had already been thoroughly screened. Whereas, in reality, CAMHS had referred the children as soon as GD got a mention, in order to reduce their own heavy caseload.

Which 'select few' and where did she detail how to identify these 'select few' prior to treatment?

So explain how these children can be accurately selected.

You tell me, you are the one claiming something was proven.

Cass was personally pushing for a PB trial two years before her report was published. She did not admit that until a couple of months ago. It certainly wasn't explicit in the report.

She is literally behind the entire thing. This is her idea and her baby.

Imho she's been a true believer all along and twisted the science in the report to recommend a PB trial she wanted. Nothing in the report actually supports it.

According to Cass for a select few medication is the best option & that only makes sense given 'normal treatments' don't necessarily always resolve distress.

innate gender identity

People have personality and character, there is no such thing as 'gender identity'.

Really? How was 'causation' proved then?

“A small number of these young people are going to benefit from a medical pathway for their gender distress," she told MSPs.

Correlation is not causation. Continuing on with cross sex hormones might simply be a function of correct self selection & screening.

Well which is it? If it’s a “pause” and “time to think” logically you’d expect some children to think it’s not for them.

If it’s correct selection, then how can anyone, including Cass, be sure they are accurately selecting the right children, given we know that there are children who grew up and realise they have been wronged?

It can’t be both a pause and correct selection, and neither hypotheses are supported by the data.