Didengenious dishonest NYT Article about the Cass Report.

[Omlettes]

""The Strange Report Fueling the War on Trans Kids''
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/opinion/cass-report-trans-kids.html
I am sick and tired of the US infecting us with their fads, and then having the damn cheek to police how we react to them.

Apologies for typo in the headline, apparently we arent allowed to edit them.

Fortunately the sane comments far outweigh the nutty ones, but I havent seen such a regressive article in a while.
I defy you not to feel your hackles rise at her dismissive arrogant tone towards Dr Cass work.

It is stupid. However, this kind of stupidity helps. American TAs love focusing on the UK which is a nightmare, but also undermines them and distracts them.

In the US

They are losing a lot at state level, this is a huge problem because if they have states where women can have sports, safe prisons, changing rooms the contrast over time will become obvious and the fight back will really begin.

Especially as it opens the possibility for a lot of legal cases.

Now the American Society of Plastic Surgeons is flipping sides the writing is on the wall. The TA cause in the US is going to become a regional issue. That is not a good plan long term.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5140837-major-american-society-of-plastic-surgeons-evidence-for-gender-surgery-on-children-low-quality

Discovery in Detrans cases is revealing WPATH as hopelessly flawed and corrupt.

Because the US TAs are in denial about this they are still arguing over Cass when they need to be watching their own backyard.

The TAs are all in on Harris winning, and it is true they really need her to win. However, defeating the TAs in the US is a long term issue which is advancing whatever happens.

In the UK

As the thread shows, Brits get pissed off by Americans interfering. Despite what Yale university claims what matters is what the NHS and British medics think. Here the TAs are finally facing serious push back. Stupid American articles confuse British TAs. They still think that Gender Crits are all puppets of the US right, when most of us are on the left and are an organic movement. We can organise and fight back by winning more and more British legal cases and inside British professional sectors.

It’s heartening to read some positive points and a hopeful perspective in this sea of sadness and harm. Thanks.

Fortunately it's an opinion piece, they've had some reporting that was much more balanced.

Clueless and disingenuous seem to be the NYT's watchwords the last couple of years. Especially concerning anything British.

https://old.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/1er92j5/nyt_how_a_supposedly_scientific_report_became_a/

Some insightful comments about the article on this Reddit post from yesterday

I'm astonished, is that actually Reddit?

I liked this comment

In a parallel universe, it’s the American right that followed the lead of homophobic conservative Iran and started forcing gay teens to inject blockers and have sex change surgeries as way to “straighten” them. In that scenario, progressives would have had no problem seeing through the madness. The Daily Show would have produced hilarious segments tearing to pieces the junk science and demented logic behind the practice of causing irreversible body harm to vulnerable, largely gay and autistic, teens.

Although I'm struggling to picture a universe where The Daily Show is hilarious.

Cluelessness about British issues by the NYT has always been marked.
And lies.
They interviewed me once at a political rally.
In the article they gave my name and wrote that I was sobbing! Needless to say it wasnt true.
I was incandescent, and wrote to the editor and journalist to no avail.

I got a real feel for the fury people must feel at having a so called reputable paper just make things up for effect.

Some information about the author of this opinion piece.
Lydia Polgreen was nominated to Out magazine's "OUT100" for 2017 in recognition of her work and visibility.[14]
OUT describes here as a queer black woman. Although her gender presentation (see Wikipedia) is often male.
She appears to be passionate about dismissing Cass and I was interested in her reference to the BMA (see bold). This was the level of the evidence she has tor querying Cass - which she describes as a Report rather than using the more accurate word 'review'.

'Transgender activists, by contrast, have harshly criticized the report. Research scientists and journalists have questioned the validity of its conclusions and its interpretations of the science. On July 31, the organization that represents nearly 200,000 doctors in Britain said it plans to review the methodology and conclusions of the report, saying that “clinicians, patients and families should make decisions about treatment on the best available evidence, not politicians.”

So, still no strong evidence or reasoning from the anti-Cass side of things.

I did find this fascinating. Apparently the TR side will argue its court cases on the basis of discrimination. To deny gender affirming case is discriminatory when the same drugs and treatments are available for entirely other medical problems. My query: If the treatment is likely to cause permanent harm and has no strong evidence supporting it then can it be discrimination to deny it? (That appears to be the anti-TR side's argument - that this is harmful to patients. For example the Tennessee law, which the federal government is challenging is called the 'Protecting Children From Gender Mutilation Act'. To be trying to overturn a law with this name while not bothering to dispute that there is in fact gender mutilation/child abuse would seem to me to be a losing strategy).

So, not actually a scientist, then? Where on earth do these people gain the confidence to dismiss several years' hard work by a team of scientific researchers, led by a distinguished paediatrician? The egotism is off the scale.

@RoyalCorgi - well the arguments seem be to 'this is discrimination so this is bad law'. There really is no need to understand science if that is your stance.
Its a petulant 'why can they have it and we not have it. That is not FAIR!'
Quoting Polgreen in this article to show what their arguments look like:

'The Tennessee law, called the Protecting Children From Gender Mutilation Act, prohibits the use of puberty-blocking medications for transgender adolescents, for example, but permits them for children who go into puberty at an early age. It bans the use of sex hormones like testosterone in transgender adolescents but allows it for other health issues, such as for children assigned male at birth. It bans gender-affirming surgeries for transgender adolescents — such surgeries are extremely rare — but allows similar surgical procedures that affirm the sex a child is assigned at birth, even on infants who are intersex.'

So ... puberty blockers allowed for children starting puberty at under age 8. This is a treatment that is used for a short time and not to stop puberty altogether, but to delay it until the child reaches an age where it puberty is the norm. Testosterone being prescribed for boys, or what she calls 'children assigned male at birth'. This can happen where puberty is delayed, e.g. hypogonadism, and again is to bring about puberty in the natal sex at the usual time. The last one is crazy 'even on infants who are intersex'. Well why would that not be offered if medically sound? I assume because the writer believes that the only reason for not offering puberty blockers, sex hormones or gender affirming surgeries is because the person blocking this is transphobic/discriminatory.

Isnt it extraordinary, such incredible cheek.
I've seen it on Richard Dawkins twitterfeed, wet behind the ears American gamers telling him he is wrong!
I cringe on their behalf but they are so teflon coated they feel no shame.

@unsociablemedia Thats a good thread, thanks.