The Cass Review Final Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, per 14:11's comment that my perspective seems "tribal" perhaps looking at the spate of anti trans legislation and the corresponding increase in stigmatization of many very vulnerable children and young adults across the US might explain my protectiveness of this population - which includes my child!

I appreciate that, and I am not saying you should feel otherwise. I am sure if it were my kid, I would feel extremely tribal as well.

But it is long-term untenable to take the position that medical research and analysis should only be undertaken by those who politically align with you on all fronts. That is what got us into this mess, and continuing down that path will only make the situation worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, per 14:11's comment that my perspective seems "tribal" perhaps looking at the spate of anti trans legislation and the corresponding increase in stigmatization of many very vulnerable children and young adults across the US might explain my protectiveness of this population - which includes my child!

Your reasons are totally understandable. But that doesn't make them sound. You're saying that you can't trust the work of a credible and highly accomplished expert because they shared their expertise at another time with a governent official/team whom you find loathsome. That is an irrational form of tribalism: "You talked to the other side, so I can't trust you anymore."

Again, your motives for it are understandable. But if everyone judged facts by their speaker, we'd be living in a very different far less developed and progressive world.

[Anonymous]

I think 14:49 is implying I am rejecting "facts" because of the speaker. I don't believe that's the case. I am rejecting a study that I think is politically motivated (and rejects over 100 peer reviewed studies showing different "facts"). You all can have a different opinion. I would just hope that you would acknowledge that these are not neutral actors. I am open to many conversations with people about trans issues, likely many more than most, and I am not opposed to facts regardless of the speaker. I am just experienced enough not to accept as fact cherry picked data presented by people with ulterior motives, many of which are harmful to people I love and care for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have been here before:

1.Schizophrenia isn't a medical condition. it's the devil possessing you or you ate a bad clam.
2. Being gay isn't rooted in science because we can't find the gay gene.
3. Women can't be pilots/engineers/mathematicians because their left brain/right brain doesn't work like men's.
4. Mrna vaccines are "untested science."
5. Vaccines cause autism.
6. Women are hysterics and emotionally unstable constitutionally, not because of their hormones.

Throughout history, bigots have used science or lack thereof to claim others are extreme and living in an "alternate reality."

You latch on to one piece of work that agrees with you and wield it like a cudgel, or hug old beliefs because change is just too hard.

I'd be careful about arguing that people who support trans people are the extreme ones living in an alternate reality.

Yes. We have been here before. And soon, “hormones and surgery for children are the best treatment for gender dysphoria” will be #7 on your list.

The science is starting to settle, and you don’t like it. Sorry.

Lobotomies are the clearest parallel to me. (Np)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:16 here - I am not saying "the science is settled and you should be fired or ostracized if you ask questions - I am saying that Cass is clearly not an apolitical actor & it influences what I think of her report. I welcome lots of discussion from health professionals and mental health professionals -- and additional research, as I stated. However, bad faith actors (which include DeSantis, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and by extension Cass who worked with both groups) from the right don't make this seem like a "both sides" issue from the perspective of a parent of a trans kid. One side is saying, let parents work with mental health & health care professionals -- more, not less -- and one side has a clear agenda. But, you don't seem to be an unbiased person, either.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2023/06/05/documents-reveal-adf-requested-anti-trans-research-american-college-pediatricians

Can you explain in detail why you think the report is biased? Because the fact that she consulted with one group you dislike doesn’t prove that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I'm taking the position that a well respected scientist or researcher who aligns with DeSantis and the Alliance Defending Freedom, both of which are extreme, in my opinion, has eroded my trust sufficiently and tagged themselves as *not* apolitical sufficiently for me not to read their report without being aware that they quite possibly are biased. I think that most well respected scientists & researchers are not seeking to align themselves with extreme political actors.

How does this report “align” with Desantis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think 14:49 is implying I am rejecting "facts" because of the speaker. I don't believe that's the case. I am rejecting a study that I think is politically motivated (and rejects over 100 peer reviewed studies showing different "facts"). You all can have a different opinion. I would just hope that you would acknowledge that these are not neutral actors. I am open to many conversations with people about trans issues, likely many more than most, and I am not opposed to facts regardless of the speaker. I am just experienced enough not to accept as fact cherry picked data presented by people with ulterior motives, many of which are harmful to people I love and care for.

ffs. it rejects those studies because they didn’t meet objective quality criteria. that is the whole point of the report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I'm taking the position that a well respected scientist or researcher who aligns with DeSantis and the Alliance Defending Freedom, both of which are extreme, in my opinion, has eroded my trust sufficiently and tagged themselves as *not* apolitical sufficiently for me not to read their report without being aware that they quite possibly are biased. I think that most well respected scientists & researchers are not seeking to align themselves with extreme political actors.

How does this report “align” with Desantis?

I am curious about this as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think 14:49 is implying I am rejecting "facts" because of the speaker. I don't believe that's the case. I am rejecting a study that I think is politically motivated (and rejects over 100 peer reviewed studies showing different "facts"). You all can have a different opinion. I would just hope that you would acknowledge that these are not neutral actors. I am open to many conversations with people about trans issues, likely many more than most, and I am not opposed to facts regardless of the speaker. I am just experienced enough not to accept as fact cherry picked data presented by people with ulterior motives, many of which are harmful to people I love and care for.

Candidly, if you reject the analysis of one of the UK’s most respected pediatricians, an analysis that has the endorsement of the editor-in-chief of the most respected UK medical journal and was also extensively reviewed by other experts, because that pediatrician at one point consulted with a government entity you despise, you do not seem open to a fact-based discussion. It’s hard to imagine what sort of analysis would be acceptable to you other than one that entirely pre-endorsed the results you want.

I am empathic to your position, to be clear. My goal is rigorous and evidence-based healthcare not only for gender dysphoric youth, but also for those kids who have other significant issues. It cannot be the case that gender dysphoria is the one area of medicine where critical analysis is not permitted, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 14:49 is implying I am rejecting "facts" because of the speaker. I don't believe that's the case. I am rejecting a study that I think is politically motivated (and rejects over 100 peer reviewed studies showing different "facts"). You all can have a different opinion. I would just hope that you would acknowledge that these are not neutral actors. I am open to many conversations with people about trans issues, likely many more than most, and I am not opposed to facts regardless of the speaker. I am just experienced enough not to accept as fact cherry picked data presented by people with ulterior motives, many of which are harmful to people I love and care for.

Candidly, if you reject the analysis of one of the UK’s most respected pediatricians, an analysis that has the endorsement of the editor-in-chief of the most respected UK medical journal and was also extensively reviewed by other experts, because that pediatrician at one point consulted with a government entity you despise, you do not seem open to a fact-based discussion. It’s hard to imagine what sort of analysis would be acceptable to you other than one that entirely pre-endorsed the results you want.

I am empathic to your position, to be clear. My goal is rigorous and evidence-based healthcare not only for gender dysphoric youth, but also for those kids who have other significant issues. It cannot be the case that gender dysphoria is the one area of medicine where critical analysis is not permitted, however.

Very well said.

[Anonymous]

For all those criticizing the report because it doesn’t include studies that show different “facts”, what do you think of the gender clinics refusal to collect data of outcomes or even share data they have with Cass? What are they hiding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have been here before:

1.Schizophrenia isn't a medical condition. it's the devil possessing you or you ate a bad clam.
2. Being gay isn't rooted in science because we can't find the gay gene.
3. Women can't be pilots/engineers/mathematicians because their left brain/right brain doesn't work like men's.
4. Mrna vaccines are "untested science."
5. Vaccines cause autism.
6. Women are hysterics and emotionally unstable constitutionally, not because of their hormones.

Throughout history, bigots have used science or lack thereof to claim others are extreme and living in an "alternate reality."

You latch on to one piece of work that agrees with you and wield it like a cudgel, or hug old beliefs because change is just too hard.

I'd be careful about arguing that people who support trans people are the extreme ones living in an alternate reality.

Yes. We have been here before. And soon, “hormones and surgery for children are the best treatment for gender dysphoria” will be #7 on your list.

The science is starting to settle, and you don’t like it. Sorry.

A single review of existing studies, none of which is a double-blind control (because they can’t be done in this situation, both for ethical and for logistical reasons), does not represent “settling science.”

Sorry you don’t like that.

I said STARTING TO SETTLE. Learn to read and not interpret things the way that is convenient to you.

It’s going to take a while. This is just the beginning.

It’s the same with the DEI madness. That is STARTING TO SETTLE as well. Thankfully.

Anti-trans, anti-DEI. Who would have guessed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angry voices in here decrying the report belong to parents who trusted medical professionals' claims that the science on puberty blockers was settled.

If so, I understand their anger and the fear underlying it. It is terrifying to realize that "experts" misled you on the science, and that you consented to treatments that have not, in fact, been proven to be benign (or reversible).

But I encourage you to read the report. It is publicly available, and free; why not read it? At the least, perhaps you can generate some original criticism, rather than recycling the same three or four objections that are also circulating on other social media. I don't know where those talking points originated, but it's pretty clear that whoever came up with them had not read the entire report.

Literally no one claimed that. Not surprising that someone hyping up this biased report would throw out lazy strawman arguments.

Major medical organizations and organizations advocating for transgender youth just a few years ago were saying that puberty blockers were “fully reversible” and the science around medicalized treatment for transgender youth was settled science. There are many screenshots if you care to look. Of course that’s all been removed now, as it’s obviously inaccurate.

No one was saying it was “settled science”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 14:49 is implying I am rejecting "facts" because of the speaker. I don't believe that's the case. I am rejecting a study that I think is politically motivated (and rejects over 100 peer reviewed studies showing different "facts"). You all can have a different opinion. I would just hope that you would acknowledge that these are not neutral actors. I am open to many conversations with people about trans issues, likely many more than most, and I am not opposed to facts regardless of the speaker. I am just experienced enough not to accept as fact cherry picked data presented by people with ulterior motives, many of which are harmful to people I love and care for.

ffs. it rejects those studies because they didn’t meet objective quality criteria. that is the whole point of the report.

If that were a reasonable criteria then it should be easy to explain how a double-blind protocol would be designed here, ethically.

Well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think 14:49 is implying I am rejecting "facts" because of the speaker. I don't believe that's the case. I am rejecting a study that I think is politically motivated (and rejects over 100 peer reviewed studies showing different "facts"). You all can have a different opinion. I would just hope that you would acknowledge that these are not neutral actors. I am open to many conversations with people about trans issues, likely many more than most, and I am not opposed to facts regardless of the speaker. I am just experienced enough not to accept as fact cherry picked data presented by people with ulterior motives, many of which are harmful to people I love and care for.

Exactly.