So angry about everyone not commenting on Cass review

[NameChangeAgainandOncemore]

Since Cass came out I have been slightly obsessively checking the SM feeds of celebs and other public figures who have been vocal in dissing JK Rowling over trans issues. I want them all to say they agree that single sex spaces and sports are required and that men should perhaps not be admitted even if they put on a dress / chop off their dick.

I am also keeping an eye on those who turned their back on Graham Linehan when he raised concerns over transing children, all of which have now been pretty much proved right.

SILENCE

Trans ideology is rightwing, conformist, anti-science bullshit, and they know it now even if they didn't before.

What a relief to finally say it, since I've been too scared to say it in rl. Still too scared:

Can I say it to my best friend who has transed her child with testosterone? NO because that kid will be under medical supervision forever, with unknown, probably cancerous consequences, and the guilt would be crushing for her, probably is already.

Can I say it to my ex teacher who is crowdfunding for mastectomy for her teenage child? NO because they are convinced it will fix the eating disorder and the social anxiety since the kid has said they will kill themselves if they can't have it.

Can I say it to the five young adult females who I watched transing themselves over the past ten years, all of whom I knew in my bones were lesbians, most with autistic tendencies, three of whom I suspected of having been exposed to sex too early? NO. It is heartbreaking to see them and what they have done to their bodies, under the care of medics, with no help whatsoever for their mental health issues or trauma.

Can I say it to my ex friend who stated I was a TERF and a bigot after I pointed out my reasons for having huge concerns over medical transition of children? NO because she doesn't speak to me any more and her best mate is a TW who cannot stop pouting for some reason.

FUMING

Read through this, together, as it addresses all of those points. Then keep talking about it
https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q837

The evidence is spectacularly clear, but it always was. The only surprise is that Cass has been so clear and so unequivocal and that the BMJ and the mainstream media (looking at you BBC) have, in general, actually reported this sensibly.

We should now see bodies that are used to acting on evidence in other cases move - as one of the counselling bodies has (hoorah).

The TRAs don't act on evidence and don't listen. However Cass had phrased it and whatever she had said, up to and including descending from on high with the clouds of heaven, they would have found some way to justify their opposition to anything that did not align with their world view (wrong kind of clouds). This won't stop.

This is not the end of the war, I wish it were. It does, however, mark a key stage in our campaign, the point at which much of the establishment suddenly pivoted to our side. This is massive. But don't underestimate the power of the TRAs.

Thank you Hilary Cass.

The kimono clad barrister is unswayed.

Those of us who knew it knew it. Those who didn't want to know it still refuse to know it.

Ultimately, I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

who is that?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/26/prominent-lawyer-jolyon-maugham-tweets-about-clubbing-a-fox-to-death

I suspect all the celebs etc are ducking for cover and taking PR advice - a bit like you’re advised to never admit blame if you have a traffic accident, they’re all trying to reframe their past position or deny it.

I’d have a tiny but of respect for anyone who put heir hands up and apologised, admitted they had got it monumentally fucking wrong, that they weren’t qualified to understand the research and studies they’ve relied on, that they were lazy and gullible and relied upon Stonewall and Mermaids, and that they want to be part of the solution… but they won’t.

Because as more people like Richie Herron and Sinead come out into the open, the more parents confirm their experience of CAHMS etc was exactly as the Cass Report said it was and that their child is irrevocably damaged, the harder it will be for them to look themselves in the mirror.

I kind of hope they all rot in hell, if I’m honest. It’s been a lonely 6 years. I suspect those of us in the trenches have a fair few more to go, even if our kids recover eventually. They can’t give us back those years or give my child her innocence and her teenage years back. I will never forgive them.

It’s been a lonely 6 years. I suspect those of us in the trenches have a fair few more to go, even if our kids recover eventually. They can’t give us back those years or give my child her innocence and her teenage years back. I will never forgive them.

Forgive my ignorance. Is there an organisation or support group for parents in your position/predicament?

@RethinkingLife well, there was supposed to be Mermaids…

but there’s a parent support group, Bayswater, and recently TransgenderTrend has been around. But it’s mainly online, anonymous. GP/Counselling services have been towing the line so until the Cass Report it’s been impossible to expose yourself as GC/non-affirming without risking censure by them and visits from social services which, from personal experience, are deeply invasive and stressful.

Hoping there will be more support now and more freedom to be open about how we feel.

Yes women should just go play out in the sunshine and not think about any of this tricky stuff!

I’m with the op. I’d love to know what the likes of EW has to say. Someone who handed over their money to Mermaids so proudly may like to explain their thinking.

Trans ideology is rightwing, conformist, anti-science bullshit, and they know it now even if they didn't before.
What a relief to finally say it, since I've been too scared to say it in rl. Still too scared:
Can I say it to my best friend who has transed her child with testosterone?

The Cass review is addressing one thing, healthcare for gender dysphoric children.

She clearly states the report is not about undermining trans identities.

She states there is broad agreement that gender incongruence is a result of a complex interplay between biological, psychological and social factors.

She also states that for some the best outcome will be transition.

Victoria Atkins, secretary of state for health, was on LK this morning but LK only asked her questions about Iran. Yes, that is hugely important but LK made time to cover secondary issues with other interviewees. Victoria Atkins managed to drop in at the end that 'protecting children was a Conservative value', which I perceived as an allusion to Cass.

@LogicLoverLlama @MrsOvertonsWindow Thankyou both.

Victoria Atkins was on Sky this morning too but Trevor Phillips, like Laura K, asked mainly about Iran and nothing about Cass. They both asked briefly about banning cigarettes sales to those born in or after 2009 (?) though. Disappointing.

Yes I love that observation. Editorials in The Times point to culpability from the medical professionals, something which Cass I believe skirts around.

Doctors as it turned out didn't know, I'm sure most of them really didn't want to know and just referred kids to a gender clinic waiting list. Not doing their job essentially.

Will Radcliffe understand this? The biggest piece of research on this, years in the making from an eminent paediatrician who is now an expert in this field. And gender clinics refusing to share their data!

Will it ever trickle in? I wish this would be a wake up call, at the very least the NHS needs to be utterly uncaptured which I think would be a turning point.

@Fieldofgreycorn I don't think the best outcome for any CHILD would be transition. Sorry but no.

"Transition," since we can't be talking here about changing from one set of conformist sexist tropes of gender norms to another (for example by growing / cutting hair, wearing different clothes or being interested in vehicles as opposed to shopping) implies, in terms of 'healthcare', firstly drugs that cause damage of unknown severity, followed by amputation of body parts and forcing young bodies to adapt to cross sex hormones.

I don't actually believe this is the best outcome for any human but I don't care what grown adults do with their bodies.

I understand that children who believe they are in the wrong sexed body are in a difficult position, and that puberty may be distressing for someone who is distressed by the idea of the potential of their own sexed adulthood, but that is the position they are in, and as children they should be protected from harm. No amount of surgery or drugs will change them into someone with a different sexed body. They should be helped to cope with it, and treated for the psychological condition that they have, discouraged from harming themselves and encouraged to accept the reality they are in.

Being homosexual was once viewed as unnatural or some kind of 'choice', perhaps even a psychological condition that could be treated with conversion therapy. We know now that it's natural, and those who are homosexual are encouraged to embrace their natural selves, their natural bodies.

Trans ideology is the opposite of that. It's a rejection of reality, and of the natural self. It erases homosexuality, and peddles the lie that sexed bodies can be changed.

And for the rainbows to fade away especially in education and healthcare settings. This can’t come fast enough.

Thanks for starting this thread, @NameChangeAgainandOncemore It’s very powerful to hear your anger: many women share it.

Why not post the link in their comments on Twitter OP & ask them what they think?

Unfortunately some are rejecting it on the basis of the research used.

@Fenimore they are rejecting it based on their ignorance of the research methods.

They are basically parroting another lie, that this research is flawed - not only claiming that studies were rejected based on them not being valid (yes and?). The whole point is that there is not enough research of good enough quality to justify slicing up children and giving them horrendous drugs

Also they have started shrieking that citations are somehow invalid since they aren't whatever sources it is these idiots think ought to be cited (youtube videos are cited. OF COURSE THEY ARE YOU IDIOTS since I shouldn't have to spell out to anyone that research papers cite EVERYTHING they encounter in order to validate the research, including Wikipedia, including talking heads who know nothing, so you can see where the fucking citation is and whether you ought to pay any serious attention to it)

So frustrating

I find the TRAs objecting to the report as falling into 3 broad camps:

1. the genuinely ignorant who fail to understand that/why criteria for undertaking systematic reviews relating to medical practice set a higher bar than other disciplines and that Cass followed the standards followed across all areas of medicine

2. the 'I went to Bernard Castle to test my eye sight' crew who are simply focussed on ignoring or discrediting the review. Here, it's simply a matter of doggedly 'keep on keeping on' with our agenda.

3. those who are susceptible to believing that the review is part of an agenda to further marginalise an already marginalised group. That like asylum seekers, there is a right wing vendetta to get rid of them.

I think within the GC community there are also groups who are over generalising the review to make claims beyond those Cass makes.

I think within the GC community there are also groups who are over generalising the review to make claims beyond those Cass makes.

Such as? (Over-generalisation and which groups are doing it to what end?) Is this on TwiX?

Editorials in The Times point to culpability from the medical professionals, something which Cass I believe skirts around.

Cass could not have written this any other way without being enmeshed in a professional stramash with the Royal Colleges, Unions, members of relevant committees and working groups, clinicians involved in any upcoming trials etc. Criticism in the report was neither within her terms of reference (I'd need to check to be wholly confident of this) nor politically appropriate to the overall task.

I know I said trans was a right-wing ideology but really it's everywhere, that's why it's so difficult to see it for what it is. That's why those who consider themselves 'lefties' are so convinced they are in the right camp, and those who know they are right-wing think that their natural tendency to be ok with transing children makes them somehow more palatable to the general leftie crowd. Insidious.

The 'left' see trans people as those who are a little bit different, outsiders perhaps, part of the LGBTQ crowd and embrace them as such

The 'right' see trans people as people living their best lives in an individualistic way, exercising their rights where it serves them and conforming to gender norms at the same time.

win win lose lose

I agree somewhat with @Brainworm about GC people using the review to over generalise (which I just did above haha). Lots of the GC have viewed it as an opportunity to bash the trans community in general, Graham Linehan for example, though I have a soft spot for him I do think he can shoot himself in the foot on occasion by not rising above certain things

Such as? (Over-generalisation and which groups are doing it to what end?) Is this on TwiX?

Along the lines of, we were right about the Tavi's mal practice and this validates the other positions we hold. On Twitter, there are lots of comments along these lines.

I agree that single sex provision should be determined by natal sex, that no-one should be required (or even expected) to use preferred pronouns etc. but I don't think this report can be used in relation to this - it doesn't provide evidence for this.

The review didn't look into how society should be organised for adults, or even children who aren't experiencing distress.

The world of medicine is more clear cut/ objective. Deciding how society should be organised will always come down to opinion and preferences. Philosophy provides a framework for evaluating arguments, and we can collect evidence relating to specific outcomes (objective- such as health and wealth, or subjective- such as happiness) but disagreement is still likely to ensue (e.g which outcomes should we prioritise).