Have you damaged the life of a child?

[LargeSquareRock]

The Cass Review into child’s gender services is out. For those of us who have been following this for years, it really is a No Shit Sherlock moment. All of our beliefs and fears for what is happening to vulnerable children (mainly autistic, traumatised or same-sex attracted girls) is set out in black and white.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

So,

Every doctor, psychologist and therapist who ignored evidence and went along with this medical scandal and who set a child on the path of no return to future infertility, osteoporosis, increased heart disease and dementia risk, lower IQ and foreshortened life span;

Every school counsellor who felt they were Rosa Parks, whispering secrets to vulnerable kids and damaging the parent-child relationship;

Every teacher who adopted gender ideology and actively poured poison into their student’s ears;

Every teacher who shut down a student who wasn’t toeing the party line;

Every teacher who made girls feel ashamed for not being happy about sharing toilets with boys;

Every social worker who damaged the parent-child relationship and threatened parents with consequences for not affirming their child’s trans identity;

Every child’s friend’s “cool” parent who claimed their home was a sanctuary from the child’s bigoted parents;

Every autism organisation staff member or volunteer who swallowed the nonsense whole and damaged a generation of autistic girls;

Every person who cut off friends when they raised concerns about trans ideology and kids;

Every Facebook group moderator who blocked members raising the mildest questioning of gender ideology, then out up the sickening virtue signalling post about “no hate allowed”;

Every single person who chanted “protect trans kids” without knowing a single thing about the issues;

Every sports coach who allowed boys into the girl’s teams and berated objecting parents and girls as bigots;

Every separated parent going along with the child’s trans nonsense to get back at the other parent.;

Everyone who has ever donated to Mermaids;

Every single person who blindly believed that a parent’s doubts about transitioning their child were based on transphobia and bigotry, not love and concern;

Everyone who has ever told a child that society hates them because of their trans identity;

Every parent who didn’t do their due diligence and happily went along with their child and who enjoyed the attention of having a trans child;

Every politician (pretty much all of them) who decided to ride this one out, even though they could see the harm occurring in real time

This disaster, ruining the lives of a generation of children, is on you.

I work with young people who are highly gc for religious reasons

@Lavender14 what religion is this? Because the common widespread religions I'm aware of in the UK are, for the most part, very much not gender critical.

I mean, yeah, true believers in most of these religions are likely to be sceptical of gender ideology, but that's not the same thing as being gender critical — they're not against the societal influence and imposition of gender and gender stereotypes in general. Broadly, if they disagree with transition and people being trans, it tends to be because they see those people as defying the gender rules, going against their god's intentions for how men and women should behave. That is, they disagree with it because they fully accept and are invested in gender, not because they're gender critical.

Sure, there are some religious people of the progressive variety who are against gender stereotyping, but they're just as likely as not to be full on gender ideologists, and all in favour of puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria, and blokes in women's prisons.

Yes, we need to stop using the words "gender critical" to describe anyone who opposes what are somewhat inaccurately termed "trans rights".

Some people oppose "trans rights" because they hate trans people.

Some people oppose "trans rights" because they believe we should all be observing strict gender roles associated with our biological sex and trying to break the gender binary is an aberration.

Some people oppose "trans rights" because their religious beliefs prohibit them from using certain spaces in the company of the opposite sex (such as changing rooms) and people being allowed to self ID into opposite sex spaces means those religious minorities can no longer use them.

Some people oppose "trans rights" because their history of rape and sexual assault by a man means their trauma responses will be triggered by the presence of male people in a female only space and people being allowed to self ID into opposite sex spaces makes these spaces inaccessible to them.

Some people oppose "trans rights" because they quite simply have no belief in gender identity and do not accept that other people's beliefs in gender identity should supersede the majority of society's wish to have single sex spaces, which exist for many good and less good reasons.

Some people oppose "trans rights" due to the obvious safeguarding loophole that is opened by allowing any man to access female only spaces (because all he has to do is say "I am a woman", and most of the time he won't even be asked because people are too intimidated to challenge men in female only spaces now).

Some people simply take the view that trans people already have the same rights as everybody else and by wanting to access opposite sex spaces they are asserting "rights" which no one else in society actually has (but can gain if they want to access opposite sex spaces and are willing to say they are trans).

Gender critical doesn't mean you are one of the above. You can be one of the above and not be remotely gender critical.

Gender critical means what it says on the tin.

Gender critical means critical of gender.

It means you recognise the importance and immutability of sex, and don't accept gender as being a legitimate basis on which to organise society.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom agree - the issue is that ‘both-sides’ are made up of alliances.

I have really empathy and support for the transexuals of old, the individuals who were so psychologically distressed by their bodies that medical treatment really was the last resort for them to obtain any peace or, in some cases to save their lives. I’ve happily co-existed with them, even in the gym changing room where I as oblivious to their presence until we shared a hairdryer space.

It’s all these ‘new types’ of trans people that muddy my thinking as I will not accept bio males in womens’ sports, intact males with obvious mental health issues in spaces where women and girls are vulnerable or naked, I will not accept that men dressed as women can comment and advise on woman’s experience and nor should they take the accolades and places that were devised for those women.

But I in no way align with the hard right, Christian movement from the US. I may not be gender non-conforming (having ditched the tomboy phase in my teens) but I do not subscribe to a narrow hyper-feminised perception of women either - women, and men, can be and dress however they want to.

Just as all the different ‘factions’ of trans movement coming under one umbrella only serves to create conflict and division, so do the groups coming under the umbrella of ‘GC’. I used to think there was strength in numbers, but I think - on both sides - that it has just led to a lack of nuanced discussion that feeds into a ‘culture of toxicity’ that simply undermines us all.

The difficulty is that even an old-school transsexual has not changed sex.

You can be an old-school transsexual who has been transitioned for over 20 years and had all the surgery and still look unmistakeably male.

And the problem with that, when it comes to single sex spaces, is that if you say those people should be allowed to use women only spaces, then quite apart from the impact on women from religious minorities or sexual assault survivors, any other visibly male person can also access those spaces. Because there is no possible way of creating or enforcing a rule which allows only those male people into women's spaces whilst keeping all others out.

Unfortunately the trans activists have opened Pandora's Box with this one.

Until fairly recently, the only male people using women's spaces were those old-school transsexuals, because the idea that absolutely any man could do the same thing with zero consequences was not yet understood. Now, in order to reclaim women only spaces for women only, the only way it will work is if we exclude the old-school transsexuals as well.

Unfortunately this ☝️

@MissScarletInTheBallroom totally agree - I clocked that it was a transexual beside me immediately, even though they really did almost pass, but I was firmly in the BeKind camp ten years ago and knew nothing of the rest of this stuff.

I am now in the ‘no biological males in female spaces ever’ camp, and feel that third spaces should be the way to go so that people who could care less can share if they wish to, but those of us who’d rather not, who want our children in single sexed spaces, should maintain our right to do so. I feel deeply sad for those benign, old-school transexuals but have to place the health of kids (esp mine) and the hard won rights of women/girls who make a bigger portion of society above theirs..

Most of my [adoptive] family are Iranian muslim in descent - asylees in the 1980s to escape a repressive regime that would deny my two aunts an education and, more recently, the existence of one of my cousins who was able to marry his husband in London last year. One of my aunts went on to be a consultant to NASA and every time a rocket is launched I watch knowing it is her research into heat absorbing materials that informed the construction of the launchpads, ensuring that the launch doesn’t leave a crater and that the rocket ascent is therefore linear and controlled [very very proud niece alert]. Where would her achievements and accolades be as a pioneering woman scientist if trans identifying men can take them away?

That the TRA movement has run rampant in this regard. I don’t understand how we have come to a state where ‘people who look like women’ are deemed deserve the rights and protections afforded the female class, as that scottish twit suggests. I was bullied and beaten up at school for being a ‘Paki’ and racially motivated though this was, I was NOT a victim of racism - just a victim of racist individuals who had seen my sari clad aunties come to get me from school. I, myself, am white British. I just happen to have olive skin and black/brown hair and brown eyes. It doesn’t mean I can claim racial victimhood.

Sorry, that seemed to be ‘about me’, but I do think most of us here are navigating this from the perspective of our own lived experience - but the TRA movement means only their ‘lived experience’ counts.

I fully agree. It's terrible. My first instinct is to burn the house down. But as someone who has had to undergo a lot of therapy to stop telling people exactly what I think all the time, if what we want in the long-term is policy and cultural change I think we might have to forgo punishment and shame at this stage. Maybe I'm wrong but everything I've learned and how people work is that they can't listen when they're on the defensive.

Spatula , it is an interesting query. I have also had a lot of therapy (for personal issues - I only got better at speaking out after menopause) and I agree with you to a certain extent.

in personal relationships, I do agree. People need to be able to save face, nobody wants to be humiliated and this where the talk about the golden bridge comes from. To enable people to retreat with some “honour” intact.

However, I also believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions (at least personally) before any serious change can happen. Unless naive do-gooders can acknowledge privately that their actions directly contributed to irreversible damage to children and the breakdown of families, they will not change. I believe they privately need to take a deep look at themselves and take responsibility for their own poor research and their cowardice.

then maybe going forward they will centre evidence based safeguarding. I couldn’t care less about an apology for all non-public people. However, I want to hammer home the damage they directly contributed to so it doesn’t happen again with next fad.

I'm surprised everyone gives people who put kids on the pathway the benefit of the doubt with their motivations. I personally don't know a single person in real life over 35 who thinks there is some magic solution (surgical and/or drug based) that changes a male to a female or vice versa. Unfortunately my 17 year old niece who is doing A level biology believes this achievable. So science has shit the bed for the next generation, but they're believers not thinkers.

I assume most do it as its a job and they are following orders, but with a cold cynicism and disbelief. Similar to the medical doctors who extract organs for sale from prisoners in China. Or the cosmetic surgeons who know their patient is mentally ill and should stop, but keep hacking away on demand. Just regular people doing a job, though I do judge them for being able to do it to kids.

Thinking back on it, this post is fucking remarkable. It really is.

Firstly, "I think it’s time that everyone who is not trans and is not a trans child just please sit down and shut up." Really? So, ONLY people who are heavily personally invested should say anything? On what fucking planet does anyone think that this is appropriate or sensible? AND I can now only assume that Tandora is included in that? Does that mean that Tandora is trans or has a trans child? Or will that mean that we shall never see Tandora post on this topic again?

Either way, that some people thought that Urquhart's emotionally manipulative thread was so worthy of consideration that they posted it here and declared that people should 'think! please think!' is really very enlightening.

What were the treatments under comparison the linked review versus, I don't know, puberty blockers? Which have been long known to cause ongoing health issues in the case of Lupron used in the female body and just recently discovered to have caused irreversible atrophy to testes and even calcification that has links with cancer. What were the treatments? Therapy, anti-depressants, anti-convulsants? How are these directly comparable to blocking puberty with hormones that then lead with very high prevalence to testosterone and estrogen, and surgeries. Particularly, with the very brutal impact that testosterone has on the female body. How are these comparable?

In addition, to this, left untreated the eating disorders are proven to significantly shorten life, whereas it has been shown numerous times now recently that gender dysphoria left 'untreated' by hormones while treating underlying comorbidities and and significant other support results in many cases of desistance and it doesn't reliably lead to suicide. In fact, suicide stats are too high after transition too, but again, still directly comparable to groups with the same comorbities that are found in people with trans identities.

How are the two comparable? And surely, we have been told that gender dysphoria is also not a condition like a eating disorder? I believe some posters have been told they were transphobic for using the comparison.... yet, here eating disorders are being leveraged for someone' own political purpose.

This linked review also points out that in eating disorder studies, they use random control groups and placebos. Another remarkable thing to be linking here after being told it should never be expected of the group seeking puberty blockers and hormones.

But, I would like the poster insisting that we 'think' about this posted thread to tell us what we are looking for in this study specifically. Let's cut through this emotional manipulation and pleading. Let's stick to the fucking facts, shall we?

I would like the poster who posted this link to explain the methodology similarities that they feel reflects a direct equivalence to the Cass Review.

I doubt we will get anything because historically, this poster will not engage with evidence at all. But I live in hope that this time, they will come and make the points of comparison and have a discussion as to how this eating disorder review is relevant for discounting the Cass Review.

It's remarkable because it's got a really good point. HTH.

Ah, a searing work of well-substantiated argument there.

It's remarkable because most people who can argue a point don't insist that it must never be debated and everyone must simply accept their viewpoint no matter what the effect on themselves, children or vulnerable people.

It's not remarkable because the insistence on "no debate" and accompanying silencing and intimidating tactics that went alongside any attempts to debate is exactly the same strategy that's been used from the start...so whatever else it is, it isn't new.

Why?

Take it to its logical conclusion.

Only people who are trans or have a trans child should be entitled to a say on whether trans people should be entitled to use single sex spaces and services or compete in sports for members of the opposite sex.

Those members of the opposite sex need to shut up, because they're not trans?

What?

Seriously??

Give us the deets.

Further confirmation that the ridiculous list posted by Caraballo, and supported here with such emotional pleas, was false. It was misinformation! In fact, has been said to be disinformation.

A list referred as evidence by a poster who has ignorantly declared amongst many other past claims, that ‘puberty blockers are safe’.

Dr Cass clarifies the falsehoods :

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hilary-cass-i-cant-travel-on-public-transport-any-more-35pt0mvnh

“Of her critics, Cass said: “I have been really frustrated by the criticisms, because it is straight disinformation. It is completely inaccurate.”

“It started the day before the report came out when an influencer put up a picture of a list of papers that were apparently rejected for not being randomised control trials.

“That list has absolutely nothing to do with either our report or any of the papers.”

“If you deliberately try to undermine a report that has looked at the evidence of children’s healthcare, then that’s unforgivable. You are putting children at risk by doing that.”

and then

“That list has absolutely nothing to do with either our report or any of the papers.

“If you deliberately try to undermine a report that has looked at the evidence of children’s healthcare, then that’s unforgivable. You are putting children at risk by doing that.”

The article goes into how Dr Cass has been threatened and abused so much in the past week that she has been advised on her personal security. As the abuse is framed that she is being said to be a transphobe and a terf, I think all reading can safely assume which group the intimidation and threat is coming from.

Apologies that I have no share token but the link let me straight through although that could be a fluke. Try archive. ph otherwise.

Here is the archive link.

https://archive.ph/m1mfc

But…. Both sides! And let’s break bread together… blah blah.

Cass should get a damehood.

I have seen that the Carabello image posted was for the earlier NICE review and not the Cass review just to be clear.

How embarassing though? That some people across the internet who pride their academic status never checked what they were posting. And that other people mindlessly just plop that opinion into threads, parliamentary debates, interviews on TV, the works.

It shows how desperate a group of activists are to discredit this report using what amounted to propaganda.

How embarassing though? That some people across the internet who pride their academic status never checked what they were posting. And that other people mindlessly just plop that opinion into threads, parliamentary debates, interviews on TV, the works.

And fundamentally it's not good enough for people who think they are responsible members of society.

This is children's safety and health we are talking about. As Dr Cass herself says, spreading misinformation is unforgivable .

Here Dr Cass is in a different interview reconfirming that the misinformation posted on this thread is false. She is very clear.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68863594

And here is the radio interview

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0hry4wj?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

I wonder if she will ever get apologies for all those over the past week who have misrepresented the evidence aspect of this. I doubt it. She is now having to protect herself from activists, those calling her transphobic and hateful, by avoiding public transport. But apparently, it is feminists who act unreasonably.

I wonder if she will ever get apologies for all those over the past week who have misrepresented the evidence aspect of this.

Of course not, but she has been advised not to use public transport for her own safety.

I think this kind of thing really illuminates - and the irony kills me - that people who are looking to erode rights and safeguarding and whose strategy is threats and intimidation really do have no trouble identifying who the women are. Even many self-identified feminists (real ones, with the exception of this one issue) don't see an issue with prioritising male wants over female needs. Even they have been that conditioned to know who the women are and deprioritise them.