The Cass Review Final Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Dp, but a meta study is not hard science...

Dear Lord. The ostrich-in-sand reaction is profound. I’m so sorry. This must be very hard for you.

Show me the hard science of the Cass Report...it is a meta analysis of other studies, which leaves many, any out. Which by the way, she complains about the lack of double blind studies in gender care, and then cites research studies in her favor that are...wait for it...NOT double blind.

Funny how that works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. All this noise because they want to pretend like science/society isn’t moving forward.

What does “moving forward” look like? More and better technology? Where has it gotten us? We are more isolated, paranoid and mentally ill than ever. Suicides are up, more people in therapy. I want some evidence of society moving forward (in a positive way).

It’s much easier to be openly gay in 2024 than it was in 1974.

Childrens’ mental health has gotten worse. School shootings are a common occurrence now. Racism has not declined, and it may even be worse now. Our government is controlled by extremists. People are too distracted by their devices to engage in meaningful conversations or relationships. I could go on and on. But yeah, I guess it’s easier to be gay now.

So you would prefer to keep gay people in the closet because you are addicted to your phone?

[Anonymous]

For those of you who dismiss the Cass report look into the leaked WPATH files. Talk about eye opening. I don’t know how anyone not completely captured by ideology can look at both the Cass report and the leaked WPATH files and not think this is a medical scandal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

That’s one of the most egregious parts of the entire report. We could, by this point, have a lot of solid data to analyze outcomes of pediatric medical transition. We could have had almost ten full years of data, with follow-ups and longitudinal analysis. But instead we have an active effort to sabotage efforts to rigorously collect data and weak longitudinal analysis.

My guess is that the outcomes are dire, but for both political and budgetary reasons, clinics were very reluctant to gather and public any data that showed that. However, my guess doesn’t matter. What matters is the lack of data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don’t think the report says that *only* double blinded control trials are good evidence. The point is that in the absence of that highest quality evidence, there remains doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don’t think the report says that *only* double blinded control trials are good evidence. The point is that in the absence of that highest quality evidence, there remains doubt.

And if there is no way to collect “high quality evidence” that meets their criteria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

That’s one of the most egregious parts of the entire report. We could, by this point, have a lot of solid data to analyze outcomes of pediatric medical transition. We could have had almost ten full years of data, with follow-ups and longitudinal analysis. But instead we have an active effort to sabotage efforts to rigorously collect data and weak longitudinal analysis.

My guess is that the outcomes are dire, but for both political and budgetary reasons, clinics were very reluctant to gather and public any data that showed that. However, my guess doesn’t matter. What matters is the lack of data.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don’t think the report says that *only* double blinded control trials are good evidence. The point is that in the absence of that highest quality evidence, there remains doubt.

And if there is no way to collect “high quality evidence” that meets their criteria?

Did you actually read the Cass report? Because it does find that some of the studies are high quality. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/transgender-medicine/109605

But to answer your question - in the area of mental health interventions sometimes it's not possible to have the highest quality evidence. That means that you assess the risks and benefits differently and you cannot claim "it's settled science."

[Anonymous]

More comments on the Cass review from Kamran Abbasi, editor-in-chief of the BMJ:

https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q837

Quotes from Dr. Abbasi that address some of the comments in this thread:

The evidence base for interventions in gender medicine is threadbare, whichever research question you wish to consider—from social transition to hormone treatment.

One emerging criticism of the Cass review is that it set the methodological bar too high for research to be included in its analysis and discarded too many studies on the basis of quality. In fact, the reality is different: studies in gender medicine fall woefully short in terms of methodological rigour; the methodological bar for gender medicine studies was set too low, generating research findings that are therefore hard to interpret.

The Cass review is an opportunity to pause, recalibrate, and place evidence informed care at the heart of gender medicine. It is an opportunity not to be missed for the sake of the health of children and young people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well, you. I’m not anti anything. I’m for a reasonable approach to both. But considering the DEI madness is correcting with schools and organizations beginning to realize that they’re not what they’re cracked up to be and are now pulling back with the blind advancement, it looks like the science on transition for children is following suit. Which is a GOOD thing.

When you start labeling people “anti” whatever because you don’t like what they have to say, you’re not going to get very far with your argument. Especially when solid science is on their side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”.

I guess that’s the impression given when you completely silence any questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”.

DP. Except people were. Activists and laypeople were. Especially as a mechanism to shut down conversations. I remember a specific instance of being told by a particular acquaintance that it was “settled science”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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”.

DP. Except people were. Activists and laypeople were. Especially as a mechanism to shut down conversations. I remember a specific instance of being told by a particular acquaintance that it was “settled science”.

I mean, just a few days ago CNN was claiming that “mainstream science” agreed that males have no athletic advantages over females (based on a single paper written 7 years ago).

“ But mainstream science does not support that conclusion. A 2017 report in the journal Sports Medicine that reviewed several related studies found “no direct or consistent research” on trans people having an athletic advantage over their cisgender peers, and critics say the bans add to the discrimination trans people face”.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/08/sport/naia-bans-trans-athletes-dawn-staley-reaj

CNN also consistently characterizes gender affirming care as evidence-based and a “gold standard”, depicting it as a scientific consensus (even in articles that are actually reporting on lack of consensus!)

“ Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based individualized care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender – the one the person was designated at birth – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which one wants to be known.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/26/health/endocrine-society-gender-affirming-care-guidelines

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don’t think the report says that *only* double blinded control trials are good evidence. The point is that in the absence of that highest quality evidence, there remains doubt.

And if there is no way to collect “high quality evidence” that meets their criteria?

Did you actually read the Cass report? Because it does find that some of the studies are high quality. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/transgender-medicine/109605

But to answer your question - in the area of mental health interventions sometimes it's not possible to have the highest quality evidence. That means that you assess the risks and benefits differently and you cannot claim "it's settled science."

Which nobody has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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”.

DP. Except people were. Activists and laypeople were. Especially as a mechanism to shut down conversations. I remember a specific instance of being told by a particular acquaintance that it was “settled science”.

So some random person who know used those words?