The Cass Review Final Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

1. You are misrepresenting what was quoted in the first CNN article. It did not say that. Just look at the quote you included.

2. Neither article say it’s “settled science”. In fact, the second article is discussing updating guidelines.

“ The committee revising the guidelines has had its first meeting, said chairperson Dr. Joshua Safer. The last time the committee updated its gender-affirming care guidelines was in 2017; it previously revised them in 2009.

“To be clear, we’ve been following our usual guideline process that we apply to anything that we do, whether it’s diabetes or thyroid etc., to transgender medical care,” said Safer, a member of the Endocrine Society who also serves as executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York. “Being the doctors in the room, we look at current data to give appropriate recommendations.””

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“The blind advancement”? Wow.

The PP called it.

[Anonymous]

The gaslighting on nobody saying medicalized care for gender dysphoria is “settled science” is quite remarkable.

About five seconds of searching the Internet produced this from GLAAD, arguing that even the mildest investigation of the actual science by the NYT was “transphobic” because the science is, to quote their use of caps, “SETTLED.”

Specifically GLAAD demands that the NYT stop asking questions about science: “Stop questioning science that is SETTLED.”

https://glaad.org/new-york-times-sign-on-letter-from-lgtbq-allied-leaders-and-organizations/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

1. You are misrepresenting what was quoted in the first CNN article. It did not say that. Just look at the quote you included.

2. Neither article say it’s “settled science”. In fact, the second article is discussing updating guidelines.

“ The committee revising the guidelines has had its first meeting, said chairperson Dr. Joshua Safer. The last time the committee updated its gender-affirming care guidelines was in 2017; it previously revised them in 2009.

“To be clear, we’ve been following our usual guideline process that we apply to anything that we do, whether it’s diabetes or thyroid etc., to transgender medical care,” said Safer, a member of the Endocrine Society who also serves as executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York. “Being the doctors in the room, we look at current data to give appropriate recommendations.””

Huh? the first article literally says it is “mainstream science” that transitioned natal males have no athletic advantage. what does “mainstream science” mean to you?

The second article literally says that gender affirming endocrinolgy care (puberty blockers and hormones) are the “gold standard.” Then yes, they quote the doctors stating the exact opposite - that in fact nothing is “gold standard” and they are reassessing.

I’m looking forwards to CNN stealth dropping all of this verbiage as time goes on and it becomes clear that in fact there is no mainstream scientific consensus or gold standard.

[Anonymous]

Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“The blind advancement”? Wow.

The PP called it.

You’re right. Should have called it politically driven advancement of something that has not been proven to work. My bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The gaslighting on nobody saying medicalized care for gender dysphoria is “settled science” is quite remarkable.

About five seconds of searching the Internet produced this from GLAAD, arguing that even the mildest investigation of the actual science by the NYT was “transphobic” because the science is, to quote their use of caps, “SETTLED.”

Specifically GLAAD demands that the NYT stop asking questions about science: “Stop questioning science that is SETTLED.”

https://glaad.org/new-york-times-sign-on-letter-from-lgtbq-allied-leaders-and-organizations/

Wow. Just read your link. Holy hell if you don’t fall into lockstep with these people’s ideas you are transphobic and bigoted and MUST STOP NOW.

And they indeed said the science is SETTLED. Unreal.

[Anonymous]

The intensity of attacks against bona fide researchers like Lisa Littman pretty much silenced any academics research in the US that questioned at all the “gender affirming” model for children/teens. That is not “science” - it’s repression of science. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy

Other more sane countries will less politicized environments continued their scientific and policy research, and here we are. Will be interesting to see what happens next in the US.

Science and medicine are not in fact advocacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gaslighting on nobody saying medicalized care for gender dysphoria is “settled science” is quite remarkable.

About five seconds of searching the Internet produced this from GLAAD, arguing that even the mildest investigation of the actual science by the NYT was “transphobic” because the science is, to quote their use of caps, “SETTLED.”

Specifically GLAAD demands that the NYT stop asking questions about science: “Stop questioning science that is SETTLED.”

https://glaad.org/new-york-times-sign-on-letter-from-lgtbq-allied-leaders-and-organizations/

Wow. Just read your link. Holy hell if you don’t fall into lockstep with these people’s ideas you are transphobic and bigoted and MUST STOP NOW.

And they indeed said the science is SETTLED. Unreal.

Yeah, the oldest and most well-established GLTBQ+ advocacy organization in the country is demanding that no questions about science that is transparently anything but settled be asked whatsoever. It is indeed unreal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

What is remarkable about that quote is that literally every single line is either flat-out untrue or at best a hypothesis currently unsupported by sufficient medical evidence.

From a public policy point of view, it is infuriating. How can the government expect people to trust them on any public health issue after this, particularly when it comes to their children? The dereliction of duty by an entity we should be able to trust is horrific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

What is remarkable about that quote is that literally every single line is either flat-out untrue or at best a hypothesis currently unsupported by sufficient medical evidence.

From a public policy point of view, it is infuriating. How can the government expect people to trust them on any public health issue after this, particularly when it comes to their children? The dereliction of duty by an entity we should be able to trust is horrific.

Public health has actually always been propaganda in large part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

What is remarkable about that quote is that literally every single line is either flat-out untrue or at best a hypothesis currently unsupported by sufficient medical evidence.

From a public policy point of view, it is infuriating. How can the government expect people to trust them on any public health issue after this, particularly when it comes to their children? The dereliction of duty by an entity we should be able to trust is horrific.

Public health has actually always been propaganda in large part.

Examples (not including COVID)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“The blind advancement”? Wow.

The PP called it.

You’re right. Should have called it politically driven advancement of something that has not been proven to work. My bad.

Diversity doesn’t “work”? Stop digging your hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what a high ranking HHS official has consistently said about puberty blockers & hormones for kids:

“ Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice... The positive value of gender-affirming care is not in serious scientific or medical dispute.”

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/30/remarks-by-hhs-assistant-secretary-for-health-adm-rachel-levine-for-the-2022-out-for-health-conference.html

Ok…and? That’s how science/medicine works. You act based on the current guidelines. Those change over time - obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“The blind advancement”? Wow.

The PP called it.

You’re right. Should have called it politically driven advancement of something that has not been proven to work. My bad.

Diversity doesn’t “work”? Stop digging your hole.

Learn to read. DEI initiatives don’t work.