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

That may be true when it's an actual illness or physical health condition which is being treated. But these children aren't physically ill. They may have mental health problems, but that is best treated by normal treatments for mental health, not by stopping the natural development of their bodies.

Yet her 4 year study of all the clinics and reports and evidence across 30 years on the whole of the planet....found no evidence of this. Weird.

Ultimately taking treatment risks is about trade offs & the better of two evils.

Definitely. Personally, I think experimenting on children's brains with an unknown impact on their lifelong cognitive function (which could be a known impact if the data linkage study was done) is unlikely to be the better of the two options. Where the two options are to do the experiment or not.

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

Indeed. That nobody is pushing for the data linkage study as the top priority must just be a coincidence.

Surely nobody wants to stop the evidence of any long term impact being made public? 🤔

I suspect it depends on the individual. According to Cass:

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

“But equally for probably a larger number their gender distress is going to be solved in myriad other ways – whether that is has been a sort of developmental questioning period that spontaneously resolves or whether they resolve uncertainty about their sexuality and then their gender questioning resolves."

While I appreciate lower risks & side effects being a consideration, many medications are still trialled & widely used with serious potential consequences so this isn't really contrary to what's broadly a standard of practice. I'm on HRT myself for menopause which carries serious risks & I'm sure many mental health drugs that are prescribed to minors are equally unknown in both health risks & long term consequences.

Ultimately taking treatment risks is about trade offs & the better of two evils.

Bearing in mind they've been giving these drugs to kids for around 30 years, WHY IS THE EVIDENCE LIMITED?

We should have OODLES of EVIDENCE.

it’s weird to be so obsessed about this trial over the data linkage study and intervention to stop parents buying unregulated and illegal drugs off the internet for their children.

This ⬆️

Luckily most people are sane. The more publicly she pushes for this experiment to continue, the more people will see how insane it is to do it. I will remain grateful to Cass for exposing the lack of medical evidence in this field, including how that is now so much clearer in school safeguarding law. But I draw the line at her advocating for a carefully selected group of children who meet an utterly unachievable threshold so that they can be experimented upon.

The selected children will be ones that are the most likely to continue to identify as trans who have stable mental health.... amongst a cohort where she openly acknowledges that we have no way of knowing who will desist (but the majority will) without intervention (even though many already have had intervention via social transition) and where it is by very definition a mental health issue to believe that your body has been made wrong (unless there is a physical impairment. And obviously we don't describe disability or physical abnormalities in that way).

The trial will be recruiting Schroedinger's transchildren. Both highly likely to remain trans-identified without intervention and highly likely not at the same time.

Edited for typo. Hopefully every typo this time.... I missed the edit function availability window to catch everything in my last comment 🤦‍♀️

This is the 'Time to Think' theory comprehensively addressed in Hannah Barnes's book of the same name. There was no evidence that it achieved anything other than locking the children onto the pathway to cross-sex hormones.

innate gender identity

No such thing. It’s an oxymoron.

I wondered whether, in between these two views (dedicated TRA ideologue and has knowledge but can’t use it) that she sees the harm, but feels it’s so heavily embedded that she needs conclusive proof to shut the whole thing down properly and internationally, not just in the UK. Guess that’s close to @Seethlaw s theory, but without her having specific information she can’t use.

If she simply cut out UK use of PB, without conclusive proof, it will linger, through illegal procurement and internationally, possibly making a comeback.

I don’t understand her at all though and her current push for it to go ahead seems extreme, compared to what I had expected, which was that she would stop after all the abuse she received. The idea that she might have caved to the abuse to reach her current situation is too unpleasant to contemplate.

There is evidence that puberty itself resolves gender dysphoria in the majority of/ vast majority of cases- see Cass Review final report for summary of this evidence and references.

Surely this is the lowest risk route with long term benefits of zero medical side effects.

Edited to correct typo

I think that there is evidence that gender dysphoria is high in males with the DSD XY 5ARD (Imane Khelif's DSD) who have been raised as female from birth.
Presumably there is a history of clinical help for these people to ultimately adjust to the fact that they are men, with male bodies. I wonder whether that knowledge could be tapped in to in order to help children such as 'Jo'.

Evidence is very limited on the effects to executive function with some studies showing no change with the use of PB for less than one year. But we won't know for sure without more studies.

But in any case, even if a young person is 'frozen in time' temporarily it still gives them more time in order to experience congruence with the presumed innate gender identity. The 'suspension' provides adolescents with GD time and rest before making definite decisions on gender reassignment without the distress of developing secondary sex characteristics that could well exacerbate GD symptoms as well as impulsive decision making.

Thank you.

I must admit that I have only been on my phone over the past few days and so have not read the letter myself.

It comes across as very dishonest not to be upfront that it was not a real case.

This is bonkers. How usual is it for peers to lobby parliament en masse like this?

I wonder if her row back on the case study she presented last week is because of the backlash- better to say it’s not in fact a case study but an illustration.

However, the excerpt posted by pp still suggests that ‘Jo’ represents the children attending the clinics.

Her own review (or the review that bears her name if preferred @TwoLoonsAndASprout) covers the evidence base for desistence with watchful waiting (60-90%). Some of the studies were relatively recent, one even conducted by the Dutch clinic behind the PB protocol.

Surely it’s plain to see that the promotion of the medical pathway as a panacea has impacted (negatively) the desistence rate.

Equally many adults have told of experiencing gender Dysphoria as children and being v grateful that PBs / gender ideology didn’t exist at the time as they are now v happy in their sex (I know this is anecdotal only).

it’s weird to be so obsessed about this trial over the data linkage study and intervention to stop parents buying unregulated and illegal drugs off the internet for their children.

FFS.

So she made up this child that was being used as an example?

That's ... extraordinary.

Very concerning that this is the kind of tactic she'd use

Exactly. It feels like it was contrived in order to shoehorn in the 'they'll get weak bones anyway' narrative.
I'm trying to be fair about my approach to the trial, but I really resent feeling that I am being manipulated. If the case in favour of the trial is strong, Cass should make it without lying.

Described situation of having been abused by supposedly responsible adults.

Little kids want to be firemen sometimes. We don't send them out on the fire engine to fight fires.

According to her…

Then she should have given an example of some of these 'multiple' children not lied in a blatant attempt at emotional manipulation.

She lied. But her point is that MULTIPLE children in this situation DO exist.

WTF - she made it up. She's already lost creditability with me now she's lost all trust whatsoever.

"I'm not up set that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you" - Nietzschie

Excerpt (if it loads ok):