Cass review: how has report affected care for transgender young people? - The Guardian 2/7/25

[UtopiaPlanitia]

Article in The Guardian tweeted by Biology in Medicine on TwiX (https://x.com/biologyinmed/status/1943616841152114706)

https://archive.ph/lfWGI

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jul/02/cass-review-how-has-report-affected-care-for-transgender-young-people

Review led to profound changes, some of which made young people feel unsupported, yet new clinics are opening

'The Cass effect
Fourteen months later and the exponential rise in referrals for NHS care has halted, with figures showing a sharp reduction from up to 280 referrals a month at the Tavistock to between 20 and 30 a month this year, a 10th of the earlier rate.

James Palmer, the medical director for specialised services at NHS England, who is responsible for implementing the recommendations of Cass, suggests a number of factors are behind the decrease. Young people can now only be referred for the youth gender service through mental health or paediatric specialists, rather than by a GP.

Palmer also believes the reduction is partly because of the “change in philosophy” brought in by Cass about hormone treatments. Her review concluded there was “remarkably weak evidence” that puberty blockers(prescribed to give young people experiencing distress and dysphoria about their bodies time to consider their next move) and cross-sex hormones (which masculinise or feminise people’s appearances) improve young people’s wellbeing and there was concern they may harm health.'

Fourteen months later and the exponential rise in referrals for NHS care has halted, with figures showing a sharp reduction from up to 280 referrals a month at the Tavistock to between 20 and 30 a month this year, a 10th of the earlier rate.
That's sounds great, has the tide on this madness been well and truly turned do you think.
Or am I getting to excited. 🤨

It’s hard to tell from the article because it frames this reduction as a bad thing. It also states that companies like Gender Plus et al are offering treatment privately and they say that their numbers of patients have risen.

Moved to private care, that and more.

Pretty much exactly what everyone said would happen if NHS will stop saving kids life, they will go elsewhere for the help needed. But who cares about reality, where you can believe that you can policy trans away.

Oh, I'll dial down the hope, we've still got a ways to go then. 😒

This isn't stopping the saving of lives. Quite the reverse, it's stopping potentially damaging and life altering-in-a-bad-way treatment being given to kids. But as you said, who cares about reality when you could mutilate children in the name of 'helping them'?

Oh yes, you are a gender and sex care expert with doctorate in development biology, just like everyone on mumsnet. Read an actual peer reviewed study, not self-published leaflet like cass review.

The article seemed quite neutral and balanced. I didn't think it was hostile.

We can see on this page that kids will still be living in an atmosphere which actively discourages them from reconciling with their sexed bodies and that makes everything harder.

What use is moving to private healthcare for blockers and cross sex hormones when they are banned across the board? And with good reason, not just on advice of the Cass report but also by the Commission of Human Medicine, who states that blockers and hormones are an unacceptable safety risk to children.

You mean that of Olsen-Kennedy whose study found no improvement in mental health after taking blockers and tried to wave that away by saying the childrens mental health was good to begin with and blockers at least ‘ensured’ it hadn’t deteriotated?

You have no idea what my doctorate is in. What's yours in? 😃

If you want an actually peer reviewed, and published in a accredited and respected journal study on results of the ban, have a read: of: Harming children: the effects of the UK puberty blocker ban
doi: 10.1080/09589236.2025.2521699 (google that for direct result)

Mind that peer review and published in a journal is not some "high bar", it's the 101 of research that Cass was unable to meet.

Of course no one here will read it, as it does not agree with your conclusions, which is opposite of how science works too, fitting of loving unscientific cass review.

How do you know what's in an unplished paper?!

Oh wait, you are just copy/pasting something long debunked: Fact Check: New York Times Publishes Misleading Story On Puberty Blocker Study

😂😅🤣

In light of the controversy following the Cass Review I can’t fathom why any parent would allow their child to attend a gender clinic. No wonder the numbers have depleted. I’m amazed the clinics even have anyone left waiting to attend at all.

You know it is now in the public domain, there's been several threads about the paper on MN.

Did you mean a single author paper paper by Natacha Kennedy? Who is not a former President of the Royal College of Paediatricians. Not even a paediatrician. Not an eminent doctor in fact not even a doctor at all but a lecturer in Educational Studies. If you Google the author's name it's obvious why he might be the biased in his conclusions.

See, that's the beauty of papers, anyone can write them, and all that matters for the peer review is the content, as it's done double blind. It matters not what clout you have online, or titles, or if you are just no one writing it at home, you will get review based on what you wrote. And it was positively peer reviewed, and consequently published in one of the more respectable journals for the field.

And cass report is self-published non-reviewed opinion piece which is now being dragged through judaica review because it cannot provide copy of most of the papers it's citing and which cannot otherwise be found online.

I love the scientific process on how it does extremely good job of removing authorship bias. And that's precisely why cass self published, as this would not pass any peer review.

Again,
😂😅🤣

Sorry you were Busted 😂. We should rename MN to Debunked Central.

This is, hands down, the stupidest post I've read on here.

Congratulations

👏👏👏

😂😂😂😂 “self published”

oh aida come on admit it!!! You’re a secret double agent for the GC side doing our work for us!

See, that's the beauty of papers, anyone can write them, and all that matters is selecting the right journal that will published it. The Journal of Gender Studies might be an academic journal but it's not a scientific journal. It's full of the musings of sociologists not anybody reared on the scientific method & critical thinking.

The titles of some of the articles in the current issue are beyond parody e.g.
The appeal of musical masculinism within contemporary online far-right spaces
Bifurcated experiences of single people in urban China: A gendered compressed modernity perspective
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showAxaArticles?journalCode=cjgs20

Love this title, gave me a chuckle. 10/10 for use of bifurcated, very evocative of trousers, so fitting.

More please!

🤦‍♀️

I have never heard anyone describe the the Cass Review as self-published?! It was commissioned by a government minister and carried out with a team of researchers from a university. I mean….self-published????? 🙄

The appeal of musical masculinism within contemporary online far-right spaces
Bifurcated experiences of single people in urban China

I make that 44 syllables in 19 words. Judith Butler would be proud