A hot take on the Cass report courtesy of Freddie McConnell

[GenderBlender]

Not quite sure what to make of this one. Freddie welcomes the report and totally agreed with it apparently, but also thinks it has the fingerprints of transphobia on it. Seems vexed that Cass has not unambiguously said that trans kids exist, and that the neurodiversity and mental health challenges are in addition to a teams identity (no explanation given as to why they are so often co morbid).

Seems to be going with the, it's all about waiting lists line that mermaids at al have been spouting.

Totally doesn't get the concept of a systematic review, says lots of research not included, that will be because it was reviewed and found to be shite so not included.

"Cass bemoans the lack of a peer-reviewed evidence base for trans healthcare. Right there with you, Doc (although there is plenty of research you decided to exclude)".

No comment made on the withholding of data by the majority of gender clinics making generating this evidence base impossible.

No comment made on why girls are now presenting much more frequently.

"If the Cass review was held under a black light, we would see the fingerprints of anti-trans ideology. I don’t believe Cass shares this way of thinking, I think she believes in evidence-based healthcare and that trans children exist. However, allowing her review to be so heavily influenced by bias is a critical failure that is hers to own."

So, the battle front is drawn, it isn't actually about gender services, we all totally agree on that apparently. This is about whether we all agree that there is such a thing as trans kids.

I think this is an unwinnable argument, like arguing whether god exists. In my view, from a medical stand point, the starting position has to be that the goal of any treatment for gender confused kids is to help them be more comfortable and live with the body they have. Only when compressive attempts at this have failed, should medical transition even be considered. I don't think this proves that trans kids exist either way, but I think perhaps for a very small number of kids this is the most effective way of relieving their distress.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/11/hilary-cass-trans-children-review

@UtopiaPlanitia the problem is Kelly just referred to something Germany study/research but nobody clarified what he was talking about. It could have been anything. It was an interview on BBC radio yesterday or else on BBC news.

Dr Kelly (his doctorate is indeed in psychology) is a member of WAPATH, according to his bio on Gender Plus (his clinic).

https://www.genderplus.com/team

McConnell transitioned as an adult, and kept McConnell's fertility options open by retaining McConnell's uterus. Why have someone like this commenting on the fertility impact of children given puberty blockers? They are in completely different medical situations. As the Cass report says, "trans people" should not be considered as a homogenous group.

It's almost as though the Guardian hasn't properly read the report.

although there is plenty of research you decided to exclude

The above is a quote from the article in the OP. I appreciate the thread has moved on but I am wondering if anyone has seen anything listing excluded research sources?

If you go into the report from University of York, they should explain their methodology of what was considered, what was viewed to be of decent quality, and what ended up being binned.

I meant the sources that Freddie said Cass decided to exclude.

tbh, there seems to be a lot of confusion about items found in the literature search that were then assessed using standard tools, and then excluded from the overall analysis.

So, Cass is being criticised for 'citing' some items (i.e., as above, finding them and assessing the) and then stating the grounds on which they weren't suited to inclusion.

From a few remarks on TwiX, there's negligible understanding of systematic reviews and how they're done. And this is despite open access to the handbooks and guidance…

I've so far seen references to dozens, 50, and over a 100 "ignored reports". Elsewhere, I've outlined what all of this overnight would-be authors of a systematic review can do. Now, if it's 100+, the timescale might be longer than I anticipated but they could still put up the list, extract the PICO, data, study characteristics etc. very quickly and post it on a pre-publication server for scrutiny.

I would admire those 'critical friends' enormously if they did this.

ETA: my initial plan when the estimate was 50 omitted studies.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5044674-cass-review-out-on-wednesday?reply=134454647&

Am I remembering wrong or didn't Freddy do a flounce from the Guardian because they ran some mildly GC stuff

"They say they have a “moral duty to stand in absolute solidarity” with trans women and trans feminine people who are receiving the most negativity from the paper, adding they will “no longer write for The Guardian until it changes its trans-hostile and exclusionary stance.”" https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5vx8j/guardian-trans-journalists

tbh, there seems to be a lot of confusion about items found in the literature search that were then assessed using standard tools, and then excluded from the overall analysis.

So, Cass is being criticised for 'citing' some items (i.e., as above, finding them and assessing the) and then stating the grounds on which they weren't suited to inclusion.

Yup. I've co-authored a systematic review so I get this ... I'm just wondering if Freddie is questioning the excluded sources or claiming that there are others out there that she has neglected or ignored.

It's a bit embarrassing for Freddie if Freddie is assuming that Cass excluded sources on a whim.

Oh good catch @miri1985!
Looks like Freddy has crawled back to The Graun’s Opinion pages as this is the third article Freddy has published there in 3 months…

This is so painfully true! Well put.

I'd challenge Dr Kelly's statement that professionals 'working in gender' don't have the same level of caution and fear', and also the posts saying up thread that professionals in that field are bound to see 'trans kids' as a normal way to conceive of child development.

I keep banging on about this because I knew one of them. The professionals working at GIDS who spoke up about their concerns both about the service operating unsafely and about the entire concept of trans children have been at the root of the Cass report and of Time to Think and really of all the most effective and child-centred pushback against this strangest of movements. I'm sure Dr Kelly is glad that he no longer has to face weekly sharp-eyed and articulate scrutiny in his team from experienced paediatric specialists with a sceptical bent, but in fact he should be devastated at that loss and I hope he is twice as cautious in his practice fat chance If you were ever in the business of recommending an endocrinologist prescribe cross sex hormones to children, or even recommending social transition, you SHOULD have a healthy level of fear. These interventions are enormous.

From what I've seen, the message that the media have got from the Cass review is that there will be huge waiting lists for all the poor children struggling with their gender. Poor children.

Hardly anything on teenage girls, and how they've been brainwashed - by social media, their schools, their friends, by the trans lobby. There's no questioning of this at all on twitter (I have to have a none GC account for my work). I work in the charity sector and it's still as anti JKR as it was. My friends who have transitioned their daughters are still 100% sure it was the right thing to do.

It's a moving target but some of the complaints are the lack of inclusion of studies that were published outside of the stated cut-off point…

You know how it is, you publish your protocol, you state your literature search will be run between (say) 01.01.1956—31.02.2022 to allow you to conduct the painstaking extraction work, summary, write-up etc. And then people who don't like what you report say, "What about [X] that was published in 2023 or 4 weeks ago?"

As above, they're welcome to make a list of these studies and perform just an extraction, analysis, and argument for inclusion…they could even, if they wish, expand on the Cass findings by re-running the analyses as a proposed update.

Didn’t Freddie have a tantrum about not being told by Freddie’s surgeon pre mastectomy that Freddie wouldn’t be able to breast-feed post mastectomy? I can’t reconcile that level of stupidity with someone reading and processing a 400 page Report and writing an article on it within 24 hours of the reports publication. That said I haven’t read Freddie’s article and it’s possibly full of shit.

Funny how the TRAs are so focused on evidence now that England is listening to the Cass report. What happened to ‘no debate’ TWAW. Suddenly every TRA under the sun wants to discuss / implement recommendations. Even Wes Streeting no longer stands by TWAW.

thank goodness this awful period in humans history is almost over.

What's Freddie's background? arts graduates are often unconsciously incompetent whe it comes to science but newspapers need to do better at screening such comments in order not to mislead the public. Is Freddie's accusation of some kind of bias, when really the problem is that Freddie has confused their arse for their elbow, grounds for a complaint?

According to wikipedia Freddy has an ‘undergraduate degree in Arabic’ from University Edinburgh.

There is no explanation as to how this led to working for The Guardian as a ‘multimedia journalist’.

Well Freddie appears to know Jack shit about science and an ethical paper would not therefore let Freddie post slanderous criiiticisms of robust science based entirely on assumption and self interest.

Didn't Freddie also take to task one of the medical staff who misgendered Freddie during childbirth (one of the most female things you can do). That poor midwife.

So, the battle front is drawn, it isn't actually about gender services, we all totally agree on that apparently. This is about whether we all agree that there is such a thing as trans kids.

I agree.

The invention of trans children has always been about justifying the behaviour of adults. And they simply can't let it go.

It's got to be killing them, though, because they leverage victim status across the board, and the Cass report absolutely sees these poor children as victims.

So all the compassion in the Cass report cannot be undermined by TRAs.

But, simultaneously, they have to promote transing children in order to justify their adult lives. And these children have to be praised for transitioning, of course. Stunning and brave.

So, I don't know about anyone else, but as soon as I read a transactivist response to the report, it's mostly full of contradictions. And seething frustration.

If Cass led treatment examines all the comorbidities, what will be left?

Detach 'being trans' from all children with autism, those who have suffered sexual trauma, and those who are same sex attracted, and what will you have left?

Because if it's a child who has such strong gender dysphoria that they would really be considered a candidate for invasive treatment, why have they got it? there has to be a reason. And this report will get doctors to find that reason.

And trans people know that.

They all bloody know why they transitioned.

And now this report might make doctors stop those children from taking that step, by addressing the reasons why they want to take it.

Which would mean, no more 'trans
kids.'

So it kind of is about gender services. It's not about having them, it's about what they're going to do.

@AccidentallyWesAnderson Probably. Whatever next, a midwife calling a woman in labour a woman.

Freddy McConnell, much like India Willoughby, has had the privilege and the joy of having biological children.

India Willoughby has fathered children using her own sperm and Freddy has gestated children in his uterus.

None of those children would exist if their parents had been put on puberty blockers at 12 and then on to cross sex hormones.

I think it would be honest of them both to acknowledge that.

Also, was it Freddy who expressed sadness about not being able to breastfeed following a double mastectomy?

If Freddy genuinely did not understand that this would be the outcome then surely he's a cautionary tale about young people not necessarily having the capacity to understand the full implications of these interventions and give informed consent to them.

I'm actually just looking at Freddy's Wikipedia page now.

Two things are jumping out at me here.

Freddy had his double mastectomy at the age of 27, and apparently did not understand that this would make him unable to breastfeed later. That's despite being more than ten years older than some of these young girls are when they have their "top surgery".

The other thing is that Freddy decided to come out as trans and start "living as a man" whilst living in Afghanistan. A psychologist could have a field day with that.