Netherlands Puberty Blocker Review Comes to Opposite Conclusion, Dismisses Cass Review

Paediatrics is the relevant clinical and scientific field.

It is absolutely fundamental to a trans identity.

A trans identity is literally "I don't think my mind is right for my body. I think my mind is not like the minds of other people of my sex I think my mind is like the minds of people of the opposite sex"

Dear God, think will you!

Being trans is literally pointing at people of the opposite sex and saying "I believe I feel like they do"!

Otherwise, and I will say this very clearly,

They
Would
Not
Be
Using
The
Word
That
Labels
The
Opposite
Sex
To
Label
How
They
Feel
Inside

Exactly as they are for children with gender dysphoria.

No, that is not the case. That's just not how an evidence review works.

You don't accept that major evidence reviews are typically led by people with substantial expertise in the relevant clinical or scientific field?

No, that is not the case. That's just not how an evidence review works.

You don't accept that major evidence reviews are typically led by people with substantial expertise in the relevant clinical or scientific field?

Exactly as they are for children with gender dysphoria.

"what everyone else feels" is entirely irrelevant to whether a person is trans or not.

They are not "fine"; they are recognised as serious drugs with serious side effects prescribed as a last resort for a serious medical condition (precocious puberty), and only used for a short time.

Trans people aren’t confused. Next.

Trans people aren't confused. They are just wrong in what they believe everyone else feels, and that leads them to make changes to their bodies trying to fix something that was never broken.

It's terribly sad.

And the people who cheerlead for "gender medicine" are .... not people who I can have any respect for.

No, that is not the case. That's just not how an evidence review works. It's based on the quality of the published evidence and there are formal quality criteria. Cass understands paediatric medicine and how to conduct an evidence review fairly and correctly.

She did a sterling job. I might not agree with all of her conclusions but I can't fault her process or indeed her determination to stay neutral and listen to all points of view while she was in charge.

Funny how puberty blockers are fine with CIS kids and only does it become a problem when they’re trans! Gotta love feminist identifying transphobes! Well done Netherlands, stick it to the captured UK

The children given short term puberty blockers for precocious puberty have observable abnormal physical signs and abnormal hormone levels for their age. That's why they are treated.
What are the physical signs and abnormal blood tests for gender confused children?

Funny how puberty blockers are fine with CIS kids and only does it become a problem when they’re trans! Gotta love feminist identifying transphobes! Well done Netherlands, stick it to the captured UK

In any other area of medicine we’d expect those leading a major evidence review to have deep knowledge of the field they’re evaluating, while managing conflicts of interest transparently. Excluding specialists from leadership because they have relevant experience risks losing the contextual understanding needed to interpret the evidence accurately and meaningfully. And that was exactly the problem with the Cass review which makes it so poor. A review cannot adequately assess a complex specialist field without leaders who understand that field in depth.

In any other area of medicine we’d expect those leading a major evidence review to have deep knowledge of the field they’re evaluating, while managing conflicts of interest transparently. Excluding specialists from leadership because they have relevant experience risks losing the contextual understanding needed to interpret the evidence accurately and meaningfully. And that was exactly the problem with the Cass review which makes it so poor. A review cannot adequately assess a complex specialist field without leaders who understand that field in depth.

Is it a medical issue or a psychological one? If it's a medical issue then what is the actual medical problem that needs to be tackled, considering that these kids do not have physical health issues and their bodies are perfectly healthy? In fact, the idea is to impair healthy bodies and body parts and to prevent the natural, regular development of the body.

Can tests - e.g. blood, scans - be done to diagnose the medical issue and determine the course of medical treatment, as with other conditions where surgery and medication are given? This goes for adults as well as kids.

Who are the medical experts in this field? Can you name any or point to credible specialist professional medical associations in the field of transitioning? Who are the great scientists and researchers who have helped advance this medical field?

The review was very much informed by the views of experienced specialist proessionals but it was not led by them. And that's how it should be done. If there is concen that lot of the experts in some specialism have gone off-piste or if there is a lot of controversy within the specialism then it's wrong to ask the professional experts in that specialism to run the review.

Instead someone with wide expertise in the broader field needs to direct the review according to the standards of that broader field. The specialism is paediatric gender care and the broader field is paediatrics. Properly done.

t’s very curious that, in this field of healthcare, specialist professional experience is somehow treated as evidence that someone’s judgement can’t be trusted. That makes little sense. In most areas of medicine, we’d expect a review to be informed by people with relevant expertise, while managing any conflicts of interest transparently.

The problem with the Cass Review was precisely that it was led by people who lacked prior specialist expertise in this area of medicine. To me, that’s a much greater concern than the fact that experts have experience treating the patients they’re discussing.

t’s very curious that, in this field of healthcare, specialist professional experience is somehow treated as evidence that someone’s judgement can’t be trusted. That makes little sense. In most areas of medicine, we’d expect a review to be informed by people with relevant expertise, while managing any conflicts of interest transparently.

The problem with the Cass Review was precisely that it was led by people who lacked prior specialist expertise in this area of medicine. To me, that’s a much greater concern than the fact that experts have experience treating the patients they’re discussing.

t’s very curious that, in this field of healthcare, specialist professional experience is somehow treated as evidence that someone’s judgement can’t be trusted. That makes little sense. In most areas of medicine, we’d expect a review to be informed by people with relevant expertise, while managing any conflicts of interest transparently.

The problem with the Cass Review was precisely that it was led by people who lacked prior specialist expertise in this area of medicine. To me, that’s a much greater concern than the fact that experts have experience treating the patients they’re discussing.