She hopes that for those "where there is a clear, clinical view" that the medical pathway is best will still receive that.
I agree with her on this. Now show how it’s possible to have a clear clinical view that a medical pathway is best for a child.
She emphasised that a medical pathway, with lifetime implications and treatment, required caution but "it's really important to say that a cis outcome and a trans outcome have equal value"
It’s hard to know if I agree with her on this because I don’t know what her definition of a “trans outcome” is. Why can’t it be what I outlined above, someone who wishes they were the opposite sex but has come to terms with the fact they can’t be and has body acceptance? That’s as much “trans” as anything else.
She expressed concern that her review was being weaponized to suggest that trans people do not exist, saying "that's really disappointing to me that that happens, because that's absolutely not what we're saying."
She has also expressed concern that her review has been blatantly lied about. But if this is her view, that she thinks it being weaponised for other reasons, of course I agree with her. Her review is the most lied about, weaponised review in the last few years.
She also clarified that her review was not about defining what trans means or rolling back health care, stating "There are young people who absolutely benefit from a medical pathway, and we need to make sure that those young people have access — under a research protocol, because we need to improve the research — but not assume that that's the right pathway for everyone."
I agree with her that her review is not about rolling back health care. It’s about improving it and providing a better evidence base. I agree that there are young people who perceive that they have benefited, but I do not agree that it was the only avenue for them. They perceive they have benefited because they were lead to believe the alternative was worse, and there are people advocating the sunk cost fallacy. They’ve gone all in so they have to support it. I also think a good number of those speaking positively aren’t fully appreciative of what they’ve lost. There are a number of trans activists who list a myriad of health complications while smiling and saying “but this is the outcome I wanted!” To me, there’s dissonance.
i think Cass was pragmatic and sensible here but I do not agree with her. The harms of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and the lack of consent means any seemingly positive outcome has been reached with significant harm and a lack of consent.
And to repeat, ad nauseam, it cannot be predicted which child, ages 10-13 or so, will be an adult who would benefit. You can’t tell us, Butters. No one can. Neither can Cass. It’s the part of the Cass Review that I don’t agree with.
But not agreeing with everything in a review is normal, you know.