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.

Gender incongruence is the medical term for when a person's internal gender identity does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth.

My understanding is gender identity is based on a purely individual perception so I couldn't give you a one size fits all but my own personal one is I see both reproductive & behavioural characteristics defining my gender.

A better way would be to track all the children who have already been given PBs. But for reasons we aren't doing that.

Again, why was the (allegedly) independent chair of a review into treatment plans for 'gender incongruent' children pushing for a PB trial two years before her review was concluded?

This is anything but neutral and is seeped in the acceptance of GII.

So expand on this.

If a girl has a “boy internal gender identity”, how is that defined?

behavioural characteristics defining my gender.

What behavioural characteristics might these be?

Carve outs are not how medical standards work. That's why they are standards. Consistency in standards needs to be maintained across treatments.

I suppose there are precedents, we as a society must have tested drugs/vaccines/cancer treatments on children in the past and obviously they can’t all have been a success. Some clinical trials must have harmed children.

Meant to say thank you @BettyBooper for flagging that Cass had been pushing for a trial before the review started (do you remember where you saw this?).

In a way, we are lucky that the review was as damning as it was, given her bias.

Yes, happy to do so.

Unless I've got you mixed with another PP, you started off pointing out that GIDS won its appeal against Keira Bell, demonstrating that its process of selection was robust. Then when challenged on that you seem to be suggesting that at least some of the GIDS staff were competent at correct selection (i.e. you were acknowledging that failures happened)..... then pointed towards Scandinavia as having everything sorted on this front.

So we've gone from GIDS being great to actually it probably wasn't and the implication that all we need to do is copy Scandinavia's selection methodology when recruiting for this trail. That's a lot of goalpost shifting.

Children who have already taken PBs or any kind of hormones are automatically excluded from the trial.

So yes, additional children will be harmed.

No that’s not a better way because depending on self reporting can’t replace the controlled medical environment of a clinical trial. That would be like an opinion survey and utterly useless at proving whether puberty blockers in general are unsafe.

Can you name another treatment that is still given to children that has such questionable ethics around it?

Do you have an answer to my question as to whether you think THIS is ethical?

Is it ethical to sterilise a child without any certainty a) the child will definitely grow up and identify as someone who wishes they hadn’t gone through puberty and b) it will help them with their distress about that?

As recorded in medical files. I doubt parents are going to be truthful about any illegal usage. In addition, for these children if they were not enrolled in a clinical trial, I am 100% convinced their parents would then get the illegal ones and give them to their child.

Do you not think it would be better to study the outcomes of children who have already been given puberty blockers rather than give them to more children.

The Cass report also recommended that this data linkage study be carried out.

Any evidence for these claims? Genuine question

I appreciate the challenges of bias provide but I also appreciate that there have been methods in modern times to mitigate scientific bias like peer reviews, transparency, reproducibility, methodological standards & analysis. It's not as if these studies can't be scrutinised & critiqued so its in the interests of those conducting them to act according to acceptable scientific practices.

There's every incentive to produce sound work that serves to build trust in the scientific community.

Reproductive characteristics are physical and relate to biological sex. That's got nothing to do with gender, because gender identity (for anyone who believes they have one) is separate from biological sex. "Gender" is the way of describing what people are identifying into, because it refers to societal and cultural norms, most typically associated with each sex.

That leaves us with behavioural characteristics..... or sex-based stereotypes as they can also be known. So does that mean you believe that these define your gender (identity)? If so I completely agree with you that this makes sense. For anyone who believes they have a gender identity, I can't think of any other way it could be defined.

As far as sterilisation goes, multiple cancer treatments do that to children. And with the activists framing this as also life threatening due to suicide risk…

I think we need proof they are unsafe and to know all the ways they are unsafe.

I recall all the arguing about leaded petrol and whether the fumes were really that bad for children inhaling car exhaust. It took decades to get leaded petrol eradicated.

A clinical trial is usually the first stepping stone to getting widespread consensus that a treatment is too dangerous and it’s a crime to give it to a child. As along as we say it’s not proven safe, they are going to argue well it is not proven unsafe.

One thing about all this I don’t really get is why genderists and TRAs want a trial. We already know PBS cause harm and such a trial is likely to prove that beyond doubt (which is why many sane people are against it, because they don’t want this group of vulnerable children to be harmed).

Following up those who have already been on PBs is the obvious way to do a study without causing further harm, yet genderists don’t want this and many of those involved are the ones who have failed to do follow-ups or actively refused to reveal information.

if they genuinely think PBs are harmless, the correct treatment for childhood sex dysphoria and have great outcomes, why wouldn’t they be super-keen on follow up research? The fact that they’re not suggests they do know PBs are harmful so why are they pro-trial?

I know it all makes no sense anyway but

What claims? This is basic behavioural science and there are historic precedents. If you can’t get treatment x that you are brainwashed into thinking your child needs, you will try and procure it from the black market. Look at all the parents sneaking in THC (cannabis) for children with seizures that were arrested for Class A drugs trafficking until the UK did the clinical trials and then legislated a medical exemption. Because it was proven safe.

The exact opposite will happen here, imho, it will be proven unsafe and any parent with common sense is going to not get any version of PB for their child, they will begin to be open to other options like counselling.

In February this year I came across minutes from an NHS meeting attended by Cass in 2022 where the PB trial was discussed and agreed. They looked legit, but I was of course sceptical. Then next day, I saw Cass on TV saying exactly that!

Then there's this letter she wrote in 2022 supporting a trial and referencing the meeting I saw the minutes to...

<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143956mp_/cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Cass-Review-Letter-to-NHSE_19-July-2022.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="blank">https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143956mp/cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Cass-Review-Letter-to-NHSE_19-July-2022.pdf

As far as sterilisation goes, multiple cancer treatments do that to children

With the alternative being death.

And with the activists framing this as also life threatening due to suicide risk…

Which we know to be a lie.

I think we need proof they are unsafe and to know all the ways they are unsafe.

We know a lot of this already.

A clinical trial is usually the first stepping stone to getting widespread consensus that a treatment is too dangerous and it’s a crime to give it to a child. As along as we say it’s not proven safe, they are going to argue well it is not proven unsafe.

So, again, ethically, the ethics team in charge of this study has to be happy to proceed knowing that it will a) sterilise children and b) there is not only no evidence so far it will benefit their mental health, it’s entirely illogical that altering a child’s body will improve their mental health.

We suspect it based on retrospective studies of adults that have taken PBs. This isn’t the gold standard of scientific evidence. This allows doubt to creep in and the activists are capitalising on the doubt.

The child abuse part is being ignored, and puberty blockers are now being proposed as the only way out.

(Instead of therapeutic psychological help
for the little boy he actually is to see if his natural self can emerge.

A pp pointed out the case following a botched circumcision of a male baby, one of male twins, whose parents saw John Money talk about transsexuals and so thought, with Money’s encouragement, that he could be brought up as a girl and therefore be a girl instead, Brenda. He was accordingly castrated at 17 months and a sort of vulva in outward appearance was created. His brother had escaped the castration was brought up as the boy he was.

Following 12 years of suffering the abuse of Brenda being told he was something he was not, he was finally told the truth.

His brother was affected by too by all that had happened with ‘Brenda’, followed by the sudden revelation of the truth. He
became schizophrenic.

‘Brenda’ shot himself aged 38.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml

These Dr Faustises and Mengeles can go to hell.

THC (cannabis) for children with seizures that were arrested for Class A drugs trafficking until the UK did the clinical trials and then legislated a medical exemption. Because it was proven safe.

THC isn’t safe for children at all 🤨

I don’t agree with your conclusions. A medical team can monitor the health of the children in ways no parent can. They can stop the trial if children are losing fertility, it doesn’t have to be a case where you carry on until everyone is sterile.

We know the suicide risk is exaggerated, but it’s not a total lie.

We don’t have rock solid proof of cause and effect. We have correlations and risk factors based on studies of adults who took PBs in the past.

Edit: Can I ask if you are against the trial and is it purely for ethical reasons?