More than that.
The report doesn't refer to gender dysphoria. It says it is different and separate to gender incongruity.
It slams the use of unscientific language in medicine relating to trans.
Language matters hugely and this says it. All those words to say women without saying women matter too.
All these people who are all 'be kind' because of dysphoria and the automatic assumption that if you are questioning your gender you are trans is important.
- The separation creates two groups. If one group isn't dysphoric, what is it? There are multiple ways this could go from this point - the group who aren't dysphoric could be made up of multiple groups. This is important in the context of late transitioning males in that it cuts that ability to link to and use kids as a justification for their position (MNetters please challenge the posters who will continue to lump everyone into one group for their personal agenda going forward). And it perhaps raises questions about adults and whether there are also more than one group - one which is dysphoric and one that is not.
- It has a massive stress on safeguarding and not assuming anything. Schools and unions take note. Keep your LGBT groups and advocates under control because this report gives parents the ammunition to come after you.
- Cis is ideological language and should not be being used at all with kids or in a medical setting. (Hello education programmes).
It effectively is saying don't assume someone has they have a gender identity if they say they have one (hey let's talk about forms recording gender especially where it concerns under 25s. It's literally bollocks and not worth the paper it's written on. This should affect adult data recording too cos of the 18 - 25 bracket).
And that's just the tip of the iceberg with it.
I think the point about huge pressure to transition is a really important one generally too.
You can't consent if you are undue pressure. Thus even gillick competent kids can't necessarily consent. We should be stressing this.
Implications for online disinformation and content are interesting here. Pro-Ana and pro-suicide sites fall foul of the Online Harms Act. Encouraging anyone under 25 to transition online just got messy in the UK. Massive implications for social media and media providers imo.
As for all those MPs who stood up in parliament trying to push through the LGBT anti-conversion bill... Well that just got bloody embarrassing.
Oh how funny. Except of course it's not.
The Cass Review is going to get quoted to a lot of idiots rather a lot.
Is this the point we can say on MN 'we told you so'?