The Cass Review Final Report

[Anonymous]

The Cass Review dropped the other day. The Cass Review was spearheaded by a British pediatrician and found that the evidence for puberty blockers in children and adolescents is weak regarding the impact on gender dysphoria. NHS is making changes to their program because of this report.

What do people think of the Cass Review? Is it changing anyone's minds or making parents pause?

[Anonymous]

I think it's a biased report based on the input of transphobic people and organizations. It's just the first step in the British transphobic culture in trying to deny transition care to everyone of all ages over there. They didn't even wait a single day before they started "just asking questions" about adult transition care. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nhs-demands-data-from-adult-gender-clinics-after-damning-report/

Very few children medically transition yet it's blown out of proportion in order to get their foot in the door to eventually stopping all medical transition for everyone. It's the playbook that was used with abortion here and you can see it happening with medical transition in red states in the US too. The difference is that we don't have a national health service and we have states like Maryland passing shield laws for patients and doctors (and parents if the patient is a minor) so it's pretty unlikely that it will ever happen here.

Even banning doctors from prescribing HRT in the UK will not stop transgender women from accessing estrogen because people buy estrogen from overseas pharmacies and ship it to their homes. Estrogen is not a controlled substance. This is known as DIY HRT which is already quite common over there because the NHS has a ten year waiting list to get on hormones even though literally any doctor can prescribe them. Most doctors consider prescribing HRT to trans people that are taking hormones made in someone's kitchen or bathtub as harm reduction because these hormones can have impurities or other chemicals in them. For trans men, I guess they would have to access testosterone however cis men get it since it's a controlled substance it's a lot more risky to posses though a lot of cis men do seem to have access to T for performance enhancement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a biased report based on the input of transphobic people and organizations. It's just the first step in the British transphobic culture in trying to deny transition care to everyone of all ages over there. They didn't even wait a single day before they started "just asking questions" about adult transition care. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nhs-demands-data-from-adult-gender-clinics-after-damning-report/

Very few children medically transition yet it's blown out of proportion in order to get their foot in the door to eventually stopping all medical transition for everyone. It's the playbook that was used with abortion here and you can see it happening with medical transition in red states in the US too. The difference is that we don't have a national health service and we have states like Maryland passing shield laws for patients and doctors (and parents if the patient is a minor) so it's pretty unlikely that it will ever happen here.

Even banning doctors from prescribing HRT in the UK will not stop transgender women from accessing estrogen because people buy estrogen from overseas pharmacies and ship it to their homes. Estrogen is not a controlled substance. This is known as DIY HRT which is already quite common over there because the NHS has a ten year waiting list to get on hormones even though literally any doctor can prescribe them. Most doctors consider prescribing HRT to trans people that are taking hormones made in someone's kitchen or bathtub as harm reduction because these hormones can have impurities or other chemicals in them. For trans men, I guess they would have to access testosterone however cis men get it since it's a controlled substance it's a lot more risky to posses though a lot of cis men do seem to have access to T for performance enhancement.

Are you trans yourself or are you the parent of a trans child? Did you read the entire study?

Your first paragraph in particular highlights to me the toxicity of the debate Cass mentions in her forward. To dismiss the report as being biased because it was based on input of transphobic people and organizations. Do you find Dr. Cass to be transphobic? If so, how? Which transphobic people and organizations are you referring to? In what way are they transphobic? Or is it a case of these people aren't 100% affirming transgenders so they must be transphobic? You don't think they may have a point and there isn't enough scientific research to show that medicalising the hormones is a 100% safe, effective treatment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a biased report based on the input of transphobic people and organizations. It's just the first step in the British transphobic culture in trying to deny transition care to everyone of all ages over there. They didn't even wait a single day before they started "just asking questions" about adult transition care. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nhs-demands-data-from-adult-gender-clinics-after-damning-report/

Very few children medically transition yet it's blown out of proportion in order to get their foot in the door to eventually stopping all medical transition for everyone. It's the playbook that was used with abortion here and you can see it happening with medical transition in red states in the US too. The difference is that we don't have a national health service and we have states like Maryland passing shield laws for patients and doctors (and parents if the patient is a minor) so it's pretty unlikely that it will ever happen here.

Even banning doctors from prescribing HRT in the UK will not stop transgender women from accessing estrogen because people buy estrogen from overseas pharmacies and ship it to their homes. Estrogen is not a controlled substance. This is known as DIY HRT which is already quite common over there because the NHS has a ten year waiting list to get on hormones even though literally any doctor can prescribe them. Most doctors consider prescribing HRT to trans people that are taking hormones made in someone's kitchen or bathtub as harm reduction because these hormones can have impurities or other chemicals in them. For trans men, I guess they would have to access testosterone however cis men get it since it's a controlled substance it's a lot more risky to posses though a lot of cis men do seem to have access to T for performance enhancement.

Are you trans yourself or are you the parent of a trans child? Did you read the entire study?

Your first paragraph in particular highlights to me the toxicity of the debate Cass mentions in her forward. To dismiss the report as being biased because it was based on input of transphobic people and organizations. Do you find Dr. Cass to be transphobic? If so, how? Which transphobic people and organizations are you referring to? In what way are they transphobic? Or is it a case of these people aren't 100% affirming transgenders so they must be transphobic? You don't think they may have a point and there isn't enough scientific research to show that medicalising the hormones is a 100% safe, effective treatment?

Are you transgender? Calling someone "transgenders" is transphobic.

[Anonymous]

I’m glader saner heads are prevailing over there. I realize that parents of kids questioning gender face a difficult situation, and the absolutely crazy atmosphere where no questions are allowed in the US is extremely toxic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a biased report based on the input of transphobic people and organizations.

When you lead with this, the rest of your comment is not worth reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a biased report based on the input of transphobic people and organizations.

When you lead with this, the rest of your comment is not worth reading.

Supportive organizations were not allowed to give any input meanwhile the actively transphobic Sex Matters led by transphobe Maya Forstater was allowed to provide input.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a biased report based on the input of transphobic people and organizations.

When you lead with this, the rest of your comment is not worth reading.

Supportive organizations were not allowed to give any input meanwhile the actively transphobic Sex Matters led by transphobe Maya Forstater was allowed to provide input.

Where did it say supportive organizations weren't allowed to give any input?

Again, what makes Maya Forstater a transphobe other than she believes, well, sex matters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a biased report based on the input of transphobic people and organizations.

When you lead with this, the rest of your comment is not worth reading.

This is perfect because the reality is that this study isn’t going to change anyone’s mind— it’s just being used to justify policy for the NHS.

We can argue about the study’s decisions about what studies to exclude, or the author’s qualifications, or whether toy choices are biological but what’s the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a biased report based on the input of transphobic people and organizations. It's just the first step in the British transphobic culture in trying to deny transition care to everyone of all ages over there. They didn't even wait a single day before they started "just asking questions" about adult transition care. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nhs-demands-data-from-adult-gender-clinics-after-damning-report/

Very few children medically transition yet it's blown out of proportion in order to get their foot in the door to eventually stopping all medical transition for everyone. It's the playbook that was used with abortion here and you can see it happening with medical transition in red states in the US too. The difference is that we don't have a national health service and we have states like Maryland passing shield laws for patients and doctors (and parents if the patient is a minor) so it's pretty unlikely that it will ever happen here.

Even banning doctors from prescribing HRT in the UK will not stop transgender women from accessing estrogen because people buy estrogen from overseas pharmacies and ship it to their homes. Estrogen is not a controlled substance. This is known as DIY HRT which is already quite common over there because the NHS has a ten year waiting list to get on hormones even though literally any doctor can prescribe them. Most doctors consider prescribing HRT to trans people that are taking hormones made in someone's kitchen or bathtub as harm reduction because these hormones can have impurities or other chemicals in them. For trans men, I guess they would have to access testosterone however cis men get it since it's a controlled substance it's a lot more risky to posses though a lot of cis men do seem to have access to T for performance enhancement.

Are you trans yourself or are you the parent of a trans child? Did you read the entire study?

Your first paragraph in particular highlights to me the toxicity of the debate Cass mentions in her forward. To dismiss the report as being biased because it was based on input of transphobic people and organizations. Do you find Dr. Cass to be transphobic? If so, how? Which transphobic people and organizations are you referring to? In what way are they transphobic? Or is it a case of these people aren't 100% affirming transgenders so they must be transphobic? You don't think they may have a point and there isn't enough scientific research to show that medicalising the hormones is a 100% safe, effective treatment?

Are you transgender? Calling someone "transgenders" is transphobic.

thanks for being a living example of the need for a major change in how we discuss these issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a biased report based on the input of transphobic people and organizations.

When you lead with this, the rest of your comment is not worth reading.

Supportive organizations were not allowed to give any input meanwhile the actively transphobic Sex Matters led by transphobe Maya Forstater was allowed to provide input.

Didn’t Dr Cass interview the doctors providing the gender affirming care?

[Anonymous]

No, I didn’t read it because I’m not obsessed about what other families choose to do with their medical decisions—especially ones approved by the American Association of Pediatrics.

Did you know that vaccines cause autism? I read it somewhere. It must be true.

[Anonymous]

Can we just shut this down now? It’s just literally someone hate trolling.

[Anonymous]

NP. The Cass analysis only shines a light on the paltry evidence supporting medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria in youth. The lack of that evidence has been known for years. The studies (and lack thereof) have been plainly visible to anyone with the willingness to be skeptical of religious dogma, neutral, and scientifically-minded for a long time. The criticisms of the report are transparently ideological and not grounded in solid data analysis.

However, thread will get shut down because the hard facts of the weakness of the studies and medical evidence are not welcome in places like DCUM, where religious belief prevails over scientific analysis with respect to discussion of medicalized treatment for gender dysphoria in youth. This is not the place for rigorous discussion of medical evidence and treatment pathways.

I also think it must be supremely painful for those parents who were emotionally manipulated into certain medical treatments with the execrable and not evidence-based threats of “dead son or live daughter,” or vice versa. For those people, this must all be awful. I don’t think the random DCUM threads are helpful to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. The Cass analysis only shines a light on the paltry evidence supporting medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria in youth. The lack of that evidence has been known for years. The studies (and lack thereof) have been plainly visible to anyone with the willingness to be skeptical of religious dogma, neutral, and scientifically-minded for a long time. The criticisms of the report are transparently ideological and not grounded in solid data analysis.

However, thread will get shut down because the hard facts of the weakness of the studies and medical evidence are not welcome in places like DCUM, where religious belief prevails over scientific analysis with respect to discussion of medicalized treatment for gender dysphoria in youth. This is not the place for rigorous discussion of medical evidence and treatment pathways.

I also think it must be supremely painful for those parents who were emotionally manipulated into certain medical treatments with the execrable and not evidence-based threats of “dead son or live daughter,” or vice versa. For those people, this must all be awful. I don’t think the random DCUM threads are helpful to them.

It’s only “paltry” evidence because they excluded 98% of studies that supported transition as a therapy for lack of a double blind protocol without considering whether a double blind protocol would even be ethical/permitted by an IRB.

This is an area where there is broad agreement among the researchers and medical professionals and it’s all been politicized to help divert people’s attention from more important issues.

It’s fine if you want to believe what you want to believe but don’t try to argue “hard facts” support you.