Hilary Cass sent a document to every single MP and Peer, justifying and defending the puberty blockers trial

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/2075512549248745744?s=20

There are ten images on X, sorry can't add them all here, or upload a file with it all in.

The threat theory seems extreme, but one of the many shocking things about the gender movement is that it definitely is possible, given the death threats and calls for murder that we’ve seen publicly expressed on plenty of occasions. It might not be her who’s being threatened, but relatives.

I don’t think it’s the only possible explanation but I do think there’s a hard fringe of trans activism that could do that.

The other possible explanation IMO is that she’s had the TRA “truth” explained to her by someone she respects and has fallen for it, because a lot of the people who are on board with it actually are psychologists and doctors and academics, despite the lack of any evidence for it and the clear evidence of harm we already have. In her position she might assume these people wouldn’t believe it without evidence and reason.

Or, she’s just sticking with a trial because her review recommended a trial and she doesn’t want to climb down as that could then be seen as invalidating the whole thing.

it boggles my mind though that anyone with scientific or medical training can look at this trial and not see the massive harms, consent issues and safeguarding issues involved, even if only through the lens of the risk of being sued in the future.

Calling blockers a neutral “pause” or a way of “buying time” is therefore unproven. It is equally possible that suppressing normal puberty prevents the physical and psychological development through which some children would otherwise become reconciled to their sex.

@Tottenhamhotflushes Given the argument is supposedly children aren't mature enough to make serious decisions it's inconsistent to suggest that waiting until they are older to make one is harmful.

The point is that they might not mature, given that they will be on puberty blockers.

These articles are so insufferably long and full of shit. They need an editor. I got ChatGPT to boil it down for me:

• A small group of prominent British Jewish commentators became influential through campaigning against antisemitism under Jeremy Corbyn.
• Some later became outspoken critics of transgender activism.
• The author says the media and Jewish institutions wrongly treat them as representative of British Jews generally.
• The article argues they use a similar story in both debates: Jews or women are presented as vulnerable groups threatened by Palestinians, the left or transgender people.
• It says this makes right-wing politics look like minority protection.
• Hadley Freeman is the main example, linking criticism of Corbyn, defence of Israel, women’s safety and opposition to trans activism.
• The author says Jewish organisations platform these figures more than queer and transgender Jews.
• The proposed solution is to stop treating them as the default Jewish voice and give more space to trans-inclusive Jewish groups.

Basically: influential Jewish anti-Corbyn commentators moved into gender politics, and the author thinks they have been allowed to speak for British Jewry without evidence that most British Jews agree with them.

No “might” about it - they won’t mature. That is the one sure thing that we do know about PBs - they stop the normal maturation of a pubescent body, which includes the mental maturation that happens during puberty.

There was an interview at a Genspect conference with a man who had a DSD that naturally mimicked PBs. He described his peers going through puberty while he wanted to continue playing with cars and digging in the sandbox. He also appeared - despite doctors having eventually diagnosed him as an older teen, and given him appropriate hormones - to be somewhat developmentally delayed.

@SingleSexSpacesInSchools, wtf?

On the other hand, that’s an entertaining new conspiracy theory!

(eta - the wtf is aimed at the article, not you!)

Re your final point, I am wondering the same.

Why is an independent report author campaigning to further enable the abuse of a child with drugs?

This boy was two and a half and she thinks this is the appropriate treatment? Not arresting the parents?

This is a cult. This is the child of a cult member.

This is not how we deal with cult survivors.

I think seeing the Corbyn era and whether you supported him as some kind of bellwether is bonkers. I didn’t support Corbyn because he was a champagne socialist who became elevated as a demagogue but who had no clear policies on many things and came across as an old school misogynist of the type many of us on the left are very familiar with. I’ve always been left-wing and had already predicted that a swing to the far left would gain traction, but I’d hoped it would be someone more competent and a defender of women.

I’m also not a supporter of Israel (or Palestine, Iran, etc) - I have compassion for everyone on every side caught up in and harmed by war, but I don’t have to take a political side in an intractable mess created 100 years ago by third parties, in which regimes on both sides have behaved appallingly. I agree that taking sides in that conflict does often map onto the sides in the gender debate and it makes no sense to me.

In her letter Cass admits that the child as described in the House of Lords does not actually exist. He is a fictional 'representative of a group of similar children'. She could have explained that at the time, but she led people to believe he was a real child. This simply contributes to the climate of mistrust.

It doesn't matter. She is still supporting a cult. You can't argue that this opinion isn't supportive of child abuse by cult members.

This boy was two and a half and she thinks this is the appropriate treatment? Not arresting the parents?
I agree, there should be at least social services involvement but there is a risk they just support this shit. It seems even Cass can't see how messed up this is from the parents.

You are fucking kidding me.

She stood up in the House of Lords and basically lied that this child existed?

And we should believe anything else that she says?

I have said it before. The actual scientists and researchers who did the work that made up “her” report should have their names on it, and she should be removed. She is a disgrace.

WTAF!

Not RTFT yet but to me but some great points raised from what I have read so far. To me there are two main factors:

1. She came access as a believer in gender identity right from the start. I found this helpful because it holds the line against handing out PBs and cross-sex hormones unchecked and at scale when a believer is pulling on the brakes, saying there isn't evidence to support them being safe for children (or indeed adults re cross-sex hormones, but that was out of her scope)
2. It makes sense that a believer who is a scientist would advocate for a trial. What makes no sense whatsoever is the decision makers around her allowing anyone to go ahead with a trial that is predicated on an unprovable belief being true. The belief that we all have a gendered soul of some kind that is separate from our body can never be tested to be true or false. Much like a belief in god. She's simply some with strong convictions (related to her belief) who has clear goals in mind. Mengele also had goals in mind with his experiments on children and presumably a strong conviction that what he was doing was for the greater good. He clearly wanted his results to inform scientific understanding more widely.

In this context, Cass is an experimenter where the potential outcome of early death in the patients is delayed by many years and the cause won't be so easy to link as being related to the experiments. She doesn't seem to mind the highly likely outcome of under-developed brains and infertility, and the absolute given of bone density loss. All apparently acceptable in this experiment.

I'm pissed off with Cass but I'm even more pissed off with everyone who is enabling her to effectively lead child experimentation of this nature. No other clinical trial is done with a belief at its heart. What's next? Testing out whether FGM can have benefits?

Edited for typo

Excerpt (if it loads ok):

WTF - she made it up. She's already lost creditability with me now she's lost all trust whatsoever.

"I'm not up set that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you" - Nietzschie

She lied. But her point is that MULTIPLE children in this situation DO exist.

Then she should have given an example of some of these 'multiple' children not lied in a blatant attempt at emotional manipulation.

According to her…

Described situation of having been abused by supposedly responsible adults.

Little kids want to be firemen sometimes. We don't send them out on the fire engine to fight fires.

Exactly. It feels like it was contrived in order to shoehorn in the 'they'll get weak bones anyway' narrative.
I'm trying to be fair about my approach to the trial, but I really resent feeling that I am being manipulated. If the case in favour of the trial is strong, Cass should make it without lying.

So she made up this child that was being used as an example?

That's ... extraordinary.

Very concerning that this is the kind of tactic she'd use

This is bonkers. How usual is it for peers to lobby parliament en masse like this?

I wonder if her row back on the case study she presented last week is because of the backlash- better to say it’s not in fact a case study but an illustration.

However, the excerpt posted by pp still suggests that ‘Jo’ represents the children attending the clinics.

Her own review (or the review that bears her name if preferred @TwoLoonsAndASprout) covers the evidence base for desistence with watchful waiting (60-90%). Some of the studies were relatively recent, one even conducted by the Dutch clinic behind the PB protocol.

Surely it’s plain to see that the promotion of the medical pathway as a panacea has impacted (negatively) the desistence rate.

Equally many adults have told of experiencing gender Dysphoria as children and being v grateful that PBs / gender ideology didn’t exist at the time as they are now v happy in their sex (I know this is anecdotal only).

it’s weird to be so obsessed about this trial over the data linkage study and intervention to stop parents buying unregulated and illegal drugs off the internet for their children.

FFS.

It comes across as very dishonest not to be upfront that it was not a real case.