Who is driving statements from Trade Unions/Yale and other (representative or not?)

[Retiredfromthere]

This seems to be a common theme. Started to respond to TUC thread but went wider and so am starting a thread rather than derailing that one. There may be other groups that this is also true of. This may be Dentons playbook stuff? www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5130831-lgbt-tuc-conference-vote-to-condemn-cass-report

So todays news ... LGBTQ+ group within TUC put forward a deny-CASS proposal at their conference and carry it. Its now possible to say that the TUC are critical of CASS. To dispute this would be difficult for the TUC? Brought by the UCU you would think that this was a solid criticism (not if you are a past member of the UCU however ...)

Same sort of thing with the BMA recently, There was to be a motion to deny CASS voted on by a small group (not the whole membership, but in this case the governing body (with strong LGBTQ+ allies in that relatively small group) https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2024/07/why-are-british-doctors-voting-to-reject-the-cass-report Not voted on, but had it been the BMA (or 'doctors') would have been said to be rejecting Cass.

Yale Law School is said to be rejecting Cass. From what I can see there is one member of Yale Law School staff in the group taking apart Cass. It sounds better than 'motley group of gender identify scholars who see the end in sight for their careers are against Cass'. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf links to their statement. Its hosted on Yale Law School site which gives credibility (and has shades of OU petition and Jo Phoenix petition about it). I wonder what Yale Law School thinks of this?

MORE ABOUT YALE ...
Its worth looking at the people who wrote that report. (On first page of PDF linked above). Nine named authors, one who is not in US (Australia), one not an academic institution (clinic and Inclusivity lobby group), so seven academics. Only two are Yale (others are from less prestigious universities) and of these two only one is Yale Law (other is medicine). Only two professors (rest are associate professors, one senior researcher). The Yale Law School Professor is a high flying one (looking at her career) - does quite a bit of work on how families are formed - for instance for LGBTQ+ children especially she argues that a pychological bond may be as important as a biological one. https://annealstott.blog/ (Rainbow coloured family allie by sound so it - not read the article).

So is this 'Yale Law rejects Cass?' Or is this rogue professor and her allies reject Cass. There appears to be a common strategy here. LGBTQ+ allies within an organization which has reputation uses that name as implied endorsement by the whole thing, which inspires public confidence and appears to represent a large group, is touting criticism of Cass.

Within the NEU 'it's' been a small group of activists who are part of the lgbtq group. (I can't remember if that's directly Cass or protesting the proposed guidelines.)

Not the official neu stance.

Should have said I was thinking of statements which are anti-Cass in title. Its bonkers for reputable bodies to claim that Cass is not sound. But the small and vocal LGBTQ+ groups within those larger entities are speaking out 'on behalf of ...' and its being reported as though its been agreed within the larger group.

Need to be vigilant and spot signs of trouble and draw attention. Of course then you are being paranoid.

Thanks so much for starting this thread @Retiredfromthere
I asked a question on the Yale thread for more thoughts/info and you have raised some excellent ones here.
I think my question got lost as there are some busy threads flying at the moment.
I really want to make sense of the Yale thing particularly- as the name and rep, as you point out, is compelling for people who are keen to doubt or debunk Cass.

I think it will be worth looking at what this 'Yale' lot do in dissecting Cass claim by claim. I wanted to draw attention to a pattern of LGBTQ+ groups speaking on behalf of bigger groups which may not agree. Unions and universities. I would want to say 'Not speaking for me here!' Were I still in UCU, or a medic, or a teacher. But this dissent is not allowed.

Plus side is it feels more achievable to steer back to reality when you see its only a few loons who are putting out statements. So one Yale Law Professor and not seven.

Hm. Wonder whether any of the people disputing Cass are declaring interests of they are making money from gender ideology, e.g.through prescribing or surgery.

There's no doubt that genderist social media has seized that Yale report as "proof" that the Cass report is flawed. I think every thread I've seen bemoaning something to do with Cass references it.

A lie can run round the world before the truth can get its boots on - especially a lie that some people really really want to be true.

So no- one we are aware of has responded to it yet? Cass or York researchers?

Good response re where the two (Cass and the Yale piece) sit in the Cochrane pyramid on a reddit thread (most of which is expressions of vindication from the Yale response):

https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1dtqa1u/comment/lbbk1fk/?utmsource=share&utmmedium=mweb3x&utmname=mweb3xcss&utmterm=1&utmcontent=sharebutton

Would copy and paste the full post, but unsure of etiquette re posting direct copy from another forum?
Hopefully link will go straight to the specific response.

Yup, it definitely can. The previous lie (by A. Caraballo) about the Cass Review allegedly dismissing 98% of puberty blocker studies because of arbitrary quality reasons has been debunked it and yet I still come across it online.

This is a live issue where different people look at the same data and draw different conclusions from it.
If you have strong opinions, surely you must respect that others will have strong opinions?
A university should be a place where different academic groups argue differently?
I feel like the issue here is with the reporting of those discussions in mainstream media and social media channels, and the sometimes unnecessarily adversarial nature of this.

@Littlepinkstarsbyradish not sure what you mean. I am stating facts to try and address why Yale Law put this out there. It seems 'they' did not.

There is one academic who is writing that paper who is from Yale Law. Out of nine names on that response. There are 194 faculty listed (all types) at Yale Law on this site. 54 are tenured.

If this were a response from 'Yale Law' there would be others than just a single professor giving weight to this and having their names down. There would be other faculty from Law who would want to have their names on this.

The convention in listing authors (though this was a list of contributors) is not to put it alphabetically but put it in order of who did the most work/should get the most credit. So if that is the convention followed then the Yale Law academic did the least work. So maybe (at best) 10% of the work came from 'Yale Law'. Yet that is the only institution credited by TRA and other sources. They might have done 1% of the work. Its very (being kind) opaque. Deception is suspected.

Note that this is a document and not part of an ongoing discourse on Twitter. If there is a new document that has more Yale Law people in it then please point me at it. Thanks

Sorry ... THIS site https://www.yale.edu/about-yale/yale-facts