Damning expose of why adult Gender Clinics failed to share data with Cass

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

Yet another carefully evidenced expose from Transgender Trend highlighting some of the damning evidence from the the one data set that was shared with Cass. The extreme level of diagnostic over shadowing that allowed serious co-morbidities to be ignored is scandalous.

If this is the data from just one clinic, what horrors will be exposed when the others are compelled to share data. The influence of trans activist groups is also evidenced.

Thank you Shelley Charlesworth and Transgender Trend for this:

https://www.transgendertrend.com/adult-gender-clinics-withhold-data-cass-review/

Is that the sound of lawyers preparing for the inevitable wave of lawsuits I hear, because its getting awfully loud

Thank you @MrsOvertonsWindow
That table from Porterbrook is really distressing

I didn't think I could be any angrier about the shoddy state of the evidence-based for these radical interventions.

I was wrong.

Those poor patients. This is a tragedy on a truly remarkable scale and I'm horrified for the people at the heart of it.

A good starting point would be getting rid of all the activist groups such as Gendered Intelligence working within the NHS.

I have been trying to follow links within NHS pages to see where patients are sent for support. NHS Livewell (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/trans-teenager/) links to Transwiki - although the link and/or transwiki seems to be broken?

Arden and GEMS (https://www.ardengemcsu.nhs.uk/services/clinical-support/national-referral-support-service-for-the-nhs-gender-incongruence-service-for-children-and-young-people/) recommend the above, plus

• YoungMinds (who send you through to Stonewall https://www.youngminds.org.uk/young-person/coping-with-life/gender-and-mental-health/),
• Papyrus (who say that their advisors have been trained by Gendered Intelligence https://www.papyrus-uk.org/trans-day-of-visibility/),
• Samartians and Childline (need I say more?!) and
• The Mix (which has a lot of stuff on trans such as https://www.themix.org.uk/sex-and-relationships/gender-and-sexuality/young-and-trans-5178.html but I haven't had time to dig through it. I do note that they in turn send people towards the the Beaumont Society (which points you towards Mermaids and the new Mind Trans+ helpline, staffed by trans people and trans allies https://www.mindinsomerset.org.uk/our-services/adult-one-to-one-support/mindline-trans/).
• Finally SHOUT and RCPsych, neither of which has gender/trans specific contect.

Until the NHS starts pointing people in the direction of Bayswater, TransgenderTrend, Genspect - or if the NHS/RCPsych could develop some useful Cass-informed information and support, it is difficult to escape this web of ideologically-informed support networks.

Thank you, @MrsOvertonsWindow.

It's like a horrifying reversal of that keyhole peek into Tutankhamun's tomb, only instead of a glimpse of a tiny proportion of those "wonderful things", we get just a hint of the magnitude of the monstrous abuses that these vulnerable patients have been subjected to, the massive betrayal they have suffered.

(But this did remind me that I haven't donated to Transgender Trend for awhile, so thanks for that!)

“The median age was 25 years overall; 36 years for natal males and 20 years for natal females. They had been referred between 2010 and 2017.”

The age split between the two sexes is really stark. Men approaching middle age and women who've only just become adults.

It fits with all the information we had, but it's important to have these cohort differences in black and white.

RCPsych is on Stonewall's WEI for 2023 FWIW as an indication of where staff ideologies and preferences lie. (It might not be, who knows.)

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/top-100-employers

It's absolutely scandalous that the NHS allowed itself to be so thoroughly infiltrated by activists and lobby groups. It's even more scandalous that they allowed those groups to be a part of running actual clinical services.

That table is deeply upsetting. Even from the scant details it's so clear that several of the women are not trans at all but traumatised by, and trying to escape, sexual assault/abuse

And, from the bravura of so many Trusts, they're proudly declaring that they'll continue to defy Cass and privilege the rights of one group over others that share protected characteristics…

If you truly thought you had nothing to hide and you truly believed you were totally ethical in your behaviours as clinicians and that you were treating your patients in the best way possible then you'd be happy that your data backed up your treatment paths and would have actively wanted it in the Cass Review!

To me their lack of cooperation just tells me that they knew whatever they handed over would likely make the whole thing a lot worse.

The table was really hard to read. Those poor girls, traumatised by abuse and wanting to remove what makes them female and therefore a target. Bastard men. The whole shit show is also about how do we end VAWG to prevent this.

It's shocking isn't it?

"Until the NHS starts pointing people in the direction of Bayswater, TransgenderTrend, Genspect - or if the NHS/RCPsych could develop some useful Cass-informed information and support, it is difficult to escape this web of ideologically-informed support networks".

Arguably @FinallyASunnyDay the NHS ought to contain enough adequately qualified professionals to offer the range of therapies / interventions that these children and young people need. But as so many of them have been threatened by transactivists into prioritising queer theory ideology, they've abandoned their responsibilities to the vulnerable and are flying the trans flag instead (sometimes literally). Add in to the mix the inadequate staffing / resources for CAMHs and these children are abandoned to the attention of transactivists.

Thank you for this MrsO.

It's shocking and overwhelming seeing it laid out like this.

The only way I see this actually being addressed is when it is fully exposed. As, despite everything recent, including vindication of TTrends packs in school that Stonewall said should be destroyed, many would still write off TTrend (successful, long term propaganda against it) or just not be exposed to it. Deeply frustrating.
It would need to be something like a BBC panorama/newsnight special wouldn't it? To really reach people?
How likely is that?

I'm struggling to understand that table, is it saying that the patients with those complex histories progressed? Or is it saying the inverse - that those are the ones who did not progress and the reasons why?

This is horrifying:

The range of co-morbidities suggested that, as Dr Cass has pointed out, diagnostic overshadowing was a factor. 72.4% of those attending the clinic had a previously diagnosed mental health condition, 89.4% had an adverse childhood experience, and 23.4% had a neurodevelopmental disorder.

I daresay the number of ND girls is higher, as we all know the diagnostic criteria is based on male presentation and girls often present very differently and mask very well.

patient sample found 68% of girls were same-sex attracted,
That's an unsurprising but telling statistic

‘Progressed’ means the patient was referred for ‘non-reversible medical interventions.’

Irritatingly, clinicians often speak about a disease progressing or if they used it to describe patients progressing it indicates that patients are moving into a state of more/different interventions on a treatment pathway. ("Progressed" in the positive sense is not a description of the state of the patients which can often be inverse/opposite to that. E.g., if heart failure progresses, the state of the patient is not improving or actively deteriorating.)

From the table, it seems that people with complex histories did not progress along the treatment pathway (e.g., less likely to have surgery/medical tx like hormones, say, at this point). We actually know nothing about the physical and mental state of those who did progress along the pathway at least as far as being referred for "non-reversible" interventions (like surgery).

No more than my informed guess because it's as clear as mud, mixed with molasses, in a dark cave at night.

Excellent article OP.

I still can't get over these lot refusing to share data with Cass. That's the first thing that left me agog while reading initial summaries.

I mean I know this stuff, but when you see it all written down in black and white it is really chilling. I have always thought gender medicine was driven by misguided but well meaning activist clinicians. Now, I am not so sure. How could they be so willfully blind despite their extensive training that would have stressed the importance of data and analysis in providing high quality care. There have to be some other ulterior motives at play here.

'The NHS is staffed at all levels by people who have followed the activist approach of WPATH and LGBT lobbyists like Stonewall, and the many local LGBT groups who have infiltrated the health service.'

I agree.

And I hope that one outcome of all this is that VAWG is finally given the attention it deserves. At all levels.

Did you see the Oedipus Trap article?

Freeman and the follow-ups he conducted. Fondly regarded by many of his former patients and, of course, leading light in lobotomies. He genuinely and sincerely believed that lobotomies benefited his patients.

Freeman’s near compulsive desire to assemble case histories may have been unmatched by any other 20th-century physician, and it resulted in a remarkably complete record of his life’s work — in interviews, photographs and case notes which, according to one of his former medical partners, displayed a fond care for his patients and their families that was “almost paternal.”
…
The most haunting element of Freeman’s story is that he seems to have died still believing in his misbegotten remedy. It is almost understandable how he embraced lobotomy early in his career — the first effective psychiatric drugs were still decades away, and doctors were desperate to offer suffering patients some treatment. But for more than a decade after effective antipsychotics hit the market, Freeman kept performing lobotomies. And even after he performed the last one in 1967, he continued to insist they were a sound idea.
“I believe it’s due for adoption when the surgeons make up their mind for it,” El-Hai records Freeman saying a year later, just a few years before he died. “I think they’re missing a good bet.”
How could he have been so blind?
Then again, how could he not be? He had walked himself into a conundrum that we might call the Oedipus Trap.

https://archive.ph/HjXYo

That was my first thought.

The second thought was that they hadn't kept adequate records, which is terrible in a different way.