Hilary Cass Interview in the Times

[Igneococcus]

Depressing that she doesn't feel safe in public anymore:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3121a27a-fd54-46d9-894a-f715de429675?shareToken=323bde6f9666d56951b1eb073ded85b1

Sounds like Cass was fucking furious and demanded that she speak to Dawn.

I would be.

I should imagine that Hilary Cass and the research team issued a polite and courteous invitation to discuss the matter with Dawn Butler.

I'm pleased that Butler accepted the invitation to discuss the matter with Cass and the research team.

I'm particularly delighted that Butler has corrected the House record and named controversial lobbying organisation Stonewall (slight editorialising on my part) as the source of the misinformation.

Dr Cass deserves all the accolades

For getting a correction post Stonewall misinformation

That's another way to put it @RethinkingLife

I'm not applauding Butler, she's culpable in all this

@trytopullyoursocksup real (ie not trans-woo) mental health care/psychiatric treatment is not based on the doctor's "feelings", you have that entirely wrong, and it is an insulting way to refer to this specialist branch of medicine (note medicine, not ideology).

I am not going to applaud the idiots who failed to educate themselves, jumped on a highly dangerous fad bandwagon for their own popularity without caring what it really meant, and have now said "oh, maybe not, actually" because it no longer suits their purpose.

Dawn Butler said that Dr Cass had said her report had been misrepresented and hijacked. She then went on to say that the report had been 'hijacked by anti-trans groups'. It's all in that 2-minute clip.

She's still blaming the wrong people for the misrepresentation of the report.

That's progress. It's long overdue that some of the more toxic over this issue labour MPs acknowledged their capture and apologised for some of their previous inane comments.
Paging Starmer, Lammy, Nandy, Russel-Moyle, Osborne and a number of others. Please join Streeting and Butler on the responsible protecting children & women's rights step.

It was very odd. Put it on record that you have misrepresented the report and then immediately accuse others of misrepresenting the report. Some people have no shame.

Yes to this.

Stonewall are blaming stonewall 😝

x.com/stonewalluk/status/1782463071866286105?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Don't trust any of them, Dawn has still blamed women and it looks like stonewall are clinging on and carrying on regardless

Albeit prefacing it with a “it seems as though I may have inadvertently”. Classic MP-speak for an admission of an error by not directly admitting it.

This book hasn't been updated since 2020, maybe DB could get a byline, provide a foreword…

Why is it so hard to say 'I made a mistake' and really believe it?When we make mistakes, cling to outdated attitudes, or mistreat other people, we must calm the cognitive dissonance that jars our feelings of self-worth. And so, unconsciously, we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility, restoring our belief that we are smart, moral, and right a belief that often keeps us on a course that is dumb, immoral, and wrong.
Backed by years of research, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) offers a fascinating explanation of self-justification how it works, the damage it can cause, and how we can overcome it.
This updated edition features new examples and concludes with an extended discussion of how we can live with dissonance, learn from it, and perhaps, eventually, forgive ourselves.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mistakes-Were-Made-but-Not/dp/1780666950/

This

Sounds perfect @NonLinguisticRhetoricIsMyKryptonite

One review, probably of the first publication:

"Interesting, disturbing but too facile
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 16 April 2013

Most people have heard of Cognitive Dissonance - the experience of holding two conflicting beliefs at the same time, and the search for a way to reconcile them. This book is a good popular introduction to the subject, and also covers Confirmation Bias, which is what happens when we choose to believe or disbelieve evidence depending on what we think to be true, and whether it's consistent with opinions we have already expressed.

Although marketed as a kind of self-help book, and written in a breezy, anecdotal fashion, the book contains many cases that are deeply disturbing, and have major social and even political implications. You may have heard about the unreliability of eyewitness evidence, but you will be surprised to find just how useless and easily manipulated it is. Stories of police inventing or hiding evidence to convict those they had already decided to be guilty will not improve your opinion of the forces of law and order. And the discussion of cases of "recovered memory" where parents and teachers were sent to prison for abuse of children which the children "remembered" under hypnosis or drugs, is quite horrifying, especially when you realise that some of the "therapists" responsible have never apologised or retracted.

This is an American book, and so must include a compulsory discussion of how to overcome the problems described. But in practice, these problems seem to be very deeply rooted in the human psyche, and, even if we know that they exist in theory, it's not clear that we can - or would want - to avoid them in practice. The real issues raised are quite fundamental ones about, for example, how criminal justice systems work, and the book does not really explore them. It would also help if the authors had included a few more examples from outside the US - it would be interesting to know how, if at all, cultural factors affect psychological problems of this kind."

The report was hijacked by anti-trans groups long before it was published. The mere fact of its commissioning has been used as a pretext for years. She's quite right.

Cass's findings do not indicate that Puberty Blockers are an inappropriate treatment; they acknowledge that some people have benefited from them and Cass herself grudgingly admits that she has spoken to people for whom they were the right choice.

The report advises caution and calls into question their suitability in all cases alongside the need for more research - which we've already known for over 30 years.

Ah, we have a live illustration of 'even if there isn't sound evidence for their use, children should have the drugs because we know better.'

Jolly good. Who needs evidence anyway.

"grudgingly"

🙄

People will struggle because they were complicit

Butler shows that in that line

The report advises caution and calls into question their suitability in all cases alongside the need for more research - which we've already known for over 30 years.

Butters, you do realise, don't you, that doctors giving irreversible, life altering medication to children knowing there's no evidence to support it for thirty years is a bad thing, right?

You seem to be suggesting that the sheer length of time they've been wilfully damaging children with unevidenced drugs is a positive.

'No evidence? Oh, we've known that for 30 years'.

Thirty bloody years! they've had three fucking decades to sort this out, and have decided nah.

“the need for more research”

It’s unfortunate for the pro-child medicalisation activists who’ve been lobbying for child medicalisation all these years, whether behind the scenes in the NHS or more publically on various Internet forums or in the media, that the adult gender clinics which are now treating those patients affected by the efforts of the pro-child medicalisation activists, have refused to share the data which could have transformed the unevidenced claims that the pro-medicalisation of children activists have been making into something approaching an evidence base.

It’s really rather surprising that the clinics which pro-child medicalisation activists are apparently so dependent on / such noisy and determined campaigners for find themselves so unwilling / unable to supply evidence to prove their pro-child medicalisation supporters right.

*the need for more research - which we've already known for over 30 years.

Research, incidentally, which six out of seven clinics still want to withhold.

'The report was hijacked by anti-trans groups long before it was published.'

The report gave hope to pro evidence-based medicine groups long before it was published.

I'm sure it was on this forum that someone mentioned just how long Lobotomies were performed and it was over a much longer period of time than I had imagined.