The Cass report - Peer review

[BeizenderKarneval]

There has been some peer review work done on the Cass review, something that a lot of us in the industry knew was problematic but that has been used by government and a number of notably outspoken individuals to justify their hateful positions

The results and conclusions are quite compelling, and I urge you to read them for yourselves:

Critically appraising the cass report: methodological flaws and unsupported claims

I find this section especially interesting:

“It undermines the legal competence of both children and adults to access medical treatment and dismisses almost all existing clinical evidence on trans people’s healthcare by applying impossible evidence standards which, if applied to other medicines would invalidate more than three quarters of the existing treatments used in paediatric care which, like puberty blockers, are currently being prescribed off-label.”

The report’s primary conclusions rest on excluding 98% of the relevant evidence on the safety and efficacy of puberty blockers and hormones for lack of blinding and controls.

What this means is that they require studies in which some patients are given the treatment, and others are unknowingly given placebos.
This is not only a clear breach of medical ethics and monstrous suggestion, but also impossible due to the obviousness of the impacts of puberty blockers and hormones.

The report also strays far beyond its scope and competence in recommending a review of adult services and in suggesting that young people ought to stay under the care of children and young people’s services until the age of 25.
The latter is based on highly questionable understandings of brain development which have been repeatedly debunked as an oversimplification of the constant changes in human neurology over the course of our lives.

This recommendation, especially in a context of an already broken system of care for both adults and children, has the potential to have a significant negative impact on the lives and wellbeing of trans people in the UK.
Underpinning this report is the idea that being trans is an undesirable outcome rather than a natural facet of human diversity.

This is clear not only from the recommendations but also from the exclusion of trans researchers from the design of the review process and the links individual members of the research team have to anti-trans groups, which the Cass team were warned about.

I look forward to an interesting dialogue.

I have got a reply - probably bog standard template.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to enable people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. The Foundation does not endorse political candidates, or have an agenda other than our mission. The idea of a neutral point of view is one of our core principles.

Wikipedia is a global project managed by tens of thousands of volunteers from around the world. Many people do not know this, but the Wikimedia Foundation does not control or edit the content of Wikipedia. We are here primarily to provide infrastructure and support the volunteer community. They are people from virtually all walks of life, who edit and contribute every day, and they reflect a vast number of viewpoints. There is no central editorial board; all edits are made by individual members of the Wikipedia community.

The volunteer editors appreciate hearing viewpoints about content, and value input from readers that can help improve the quality of information. If you have specific corrections or facts to offer, volunteers require citations or facts from reliable, high-quality sources to review and improve the information. You can learn more about how misinformation is addressed on Wikipedia in .

Wikipedia volunteers are strongly focused on the editorial values of non-censorship, neutrality, verifiability, and what is termed 'no original research.' All volunteers invested in the quality of Wikipedia are working collectively to build balanced, neutral articles that reflect a variety of perspectives on often complex, high-profile topics. Content and information can change quickly to reflect world events and new facts.

Clicking on the 'View history' tab of an article will display the edit history of that article with associated comments. For controversial or contested articles, clicking on the Talk Page can often provide more context about how the article was created, and will show any debates among the editors.

For any further questions about Wikipedia content or guidelines, please contact [email protected], an email address answered by longtime project editors with vast editorial experience.

Obviously I was already aware that the content was volunteer created and maintained. My instinct is to reply and tell Wikipedia that as hosts THEY are ultimately responsible for the content on the site. But that I will engage on a couple of the most egregious points and see what happens. If nothing then I expect Wikipedia management to intervene. My irritation point (apart from regular use of the words "terf" and "cisgender") is the complete lack of acknowledgement of the threats and violence used against anyone standing up against transgender ideology, whereas there is a long paragraph on attacks on transgender people. If anyone has any detailed refutations of other Wiki errors with sources, let me know.

I will pm you