Not sure why posters on this thread are expecting 'conniptions' about a report that they have been enshrining as the impending Holy Text of the Gender Critical reaction movement since it was commissioned four years ago and yet which has resoundingly failed to produce the supposed legions of detransitioners that anti-trans rhetoric requires to exist.
We already knew the state of trans healthcare for young people in the UK was woefully inadequate; that endocrine interventions are complex and not to be taken lightly; that the number of young patients given them is extremely small and that the filtering that accounts for the oft-misinterpreted desistence stats has already largely occurred by the point patients have their endocrinology consultations.
The report has revealed quite a bit about Cass and the various biases, preconceptions murky associations and undeclared conflicts of interest across her team, and doubly so about the organisations that are now making misleading claims about the report's findings.
Please don't misgender me by the way. It's quite rude.