The Cass Review Final Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" it's obvious that has not been happening in many instances, and the fallout from what is likely to be a significant medical scandal is just beginning."

No. It is not obvious. What is obvious is that decades of ignoring transcare has been more detrimental to children and adults a extreme pivot, even if you believe that it's extreme, which I do not.


People who have absolutely no experience with this feel the need to chime in. "Parents are being manipulated. Parents have an agenda. Medical doctors have an agenda."

What do you think their agenda is? Their agenda is the best care of their children and their patients and your endless, useless input on something you have no concept of and do not have to deal with is just exhausting

When I see someone write "I'm tired" or "just exhausting" or something similar, I know they are on ideological weak grounds because they can't argue back convincingly, so they resort to these kinds of tropes.

The Cass report is highly damaging and summarized what many of us long thought and observed. Gender dysphoria is a real condition for a tiny number of children but it is separate from factual biology, and enablers blew it enormously out of proportions and effectively hoodwinked gullible progressive parents into thinking their kids were trans and fooling the kids themselves, many who were autistic or gay or lesbian and still figuring things out. Then throw in an undeniable aspect of female fetishization that does have a history within the gay community. Recipe for disaster. The sad thing is that quite a few of these kids permanently damaged their bodies as well as mental conditions because of enabling adults who thought they were being "kind".

Wow. So many baseless, unsupported conclusions here.

The Cass report is highly flawed because it intentionally ignores large amounts of work on the field.

When the editor-in-chief of The BMJ explicitly disagrees with you, and you have literally no substantive response, you are on shaky ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly.

They had objective standards for high-quality research. And the major conclusion is that we need more high-quality research before we can recommend when trans kids should get medically transitioned. That evidence may show benefits for some kids. But you simply cannot shut down the need to produce better evidence.

Explain how a double-blind protocol would be designed here. Ethically.

Explain how ethically a child can consent to loss of sexual function and fertility?

The design of research studies is complicated and I don’t pretend to be an expert. But to claim “oh we can’t do those studies therefore you have to accept crap reasearch as THE TRUTH” is totally toxic. Maybe there are some areas where you cannot do controlled research very well. That may be the case, but it doesn’t follow that you can exaggerate the conclusions of the less-definitive research. If all we have is poor quality evidence, then we cannot say “it’s SCIENCE that trans kids should medically transition!”

Children aren’t getting bottom surgery so that’s irrelevant.

Do we need more research? Sure.

Is it complicated to navigate the ethics while designing these studies? Yes.

Should anti-trans activists gatekeep studies because of this? No f-ing way.

It’s pure political posturing to completely ignore the studies that have been done because of the complex nature of the work.

It’s frankly scary how you can be so ignorant yet have your pitchforks out for anyone you deem “anti-trans.” The impact on fertility for children is not due to bottom surgery. It is happens when their reproductive systems cannot develop because they don’t go through normal puberty and then they take cross-sex hormones. That’s the medical care that many kids are getting. It can also impact sexual function as well.

And I know “gate keep” is a trendy term, but wtf is “gate keeping” a scientific study? Do you think research that aligns with your beliefs should be exempt from critique, ie, gatekeeping?

Puberty blockers don’t destroy fertility and hormone treatment happens at an older age. Fertility isn’t truly lost until gonads are removed, if ever. Irrelevant.

Yes, by ignoring substantial amount of work in the field the anti-trans activists are gatekeeping.

Or, if you think this report isn’t biased, I’d love to hear how this supposed ethical, double-blind protocol would work.

Maybe you should tell us what specifically the editor-in-chief of the oldest and most respected medical journal in the UK does not understand and has wrong. Please be precise and specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" it's obvious that has not been happening in many instances, and the fallout from what is likely to be a significant medical scandal is just beginning."

No. It is not obvious. What is obvious is that decades of ignoring transcare has been more detrimental to children and adults a extreme pivot, even if you believe that it's extreme, which I do not.


People who have absolutely no experience with this feel the need to chime in. "Parents are being manipulated. Parents have an agenda. Medical doctors have an agenda."

What do you think their agenda is? Their agenda is the best care of their children and their patients and your endless, useless input on something you have no concept of and do not have to deal with is just exhausting

When I see someone write "I'm tired" or "just exhausting" or something similar, I know they are on ideological weak grounds because they can't argue back convincingly, so they resort to these kinds of tropes.

The Cass report is highly damaging and summarized what many of us long thought and observed. Gender dysphoria is a real condition for a tiny number of children but it is separate from factual biology, and enablers blew it enormously out of proportions and effectively hoodwinked gullible progressive parents into thinking their kids were trans and fooling the kids themselves, many who were autistic or gay or lesbian and still figuring things out. Then throw in an undeniable aspect of female fetishization that does have a history within the gay community. Recipe for disaster. The sad thing is that quite a few of these kids permanently damaged their bodies as well as mental conditions because of enabling adults who thought they were being "kind".

Wow. So many baseless, unsupported conclusions here.

The Cass report is highly flawed because it intentionally ignores large amounts of work on the field.

When the editor-in-chief of The BMJ explicitly disagrees with you, and you have literally no substantive response, you are on shaky ground.

Neither the editor nor the report said any of the fiction above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" it's obvious that has not been happening in many instances, and the fallout from what is likely to be a significant medical scandal is just beginning."

No. It is not obvious. What is obvious is that decades of ignoring transcare has been more detrimental to children and adults a extreme pivot, even if you believe that it's extreme, which I do not.


People who have absolutely no experience with this feel the need to chime in. "Parents are being manipulated. Parents have an agenda. Medical doctors have an agenda."

What do you think their agenda is? Their agenda is the best care of their children and their patients and your endless, useless input on something you have no concept of and do not have to deal with is just exhausting

When I see someone write "I'm tired" or "just exhausting" or something similar, I know they are on ideological weak grounds because they can't argue back convincingly, so they resort to these kinds of tropes.

The Cass report is highly damaging and summarized what many of us long thought and observed.

When I see someone engage in forced/imaginary teaming by referring to themselves as part of an amorphous and ostensibly large group of “us” who share views that cause harm to trans kids, I know they are arguing from ideology and not science.

By the way: if your views are so strongly formed by “the science,” how did you have them before this “highly damaging” report was published, in the era of the rampant suppression you’re convinced existed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly.

They had objective standards for high-quality research. And the major conclusion is that we need more high-quality research before we can recommend when trans kids should get medically transitioned. That evidence may show benefits for some kids. But you simply cannot shut down the need to produce better evidence.

Explain how a double-blind protocol would be designed here. Ethically.

Explain how ethically a child can consent to loss of sexual function and fertility?

The design of research studies is complicated and I don’t pretend to be an expert. But to claim “oh we can’t do those studies therefore you have to accept crap reasearch as THE TRUTH” is totally toxic. Maybe there are some areas where you cannot do controlled research very well. That may be the case, but it doesn’t follow that you can exaggerate the conclusions of the less-definitive research. If all we have is poor quality evidence, then we cannot say “it’s SCIENCE that trans kids should medically transition!”

Children aren’t getting bottom surgery so that’s irrelevant.

Do we need more research? Sure.

Is it complicated to navigate the ethics while designing these studies? Yes.

Should anti-trans activists gatekeep studies because of this? No f-ing way.

It’s pure political posturing to completely ignore the studies that have been done because of the complex nature of the work.

It’s frankly scary how you can be so ignorant yet have your pitchforks out for anyone you deem “anti-trans.” The impact on fertility for children is not due to bottom surgery. It is happens when their reproductive systems cannot develop because they don’t go through normal puberty and then they take cross-sex hormones. That’s the medical care that many kids are getting. It can also impact sexual function as well.

And I know “gate keep” is a trendy term, but wtf is “gate keeping” a scientific study? Do you think research that aligns with your beliefs should be exempt from critique, ie, gatekeeping?

Puberty blockers don’t destroy fertility and hormone treatment happens at an older age. Fertility isn’t truly lost until gonads are removed, if ever. Irrelevant.

Yes, by ignoring substantial amount of work in the field the anti-trans activists are gatekeeping.

Or, if you think this report isn’t biased, I’d love to hear how this supposed ethical, double-blind protocol would work.

I’m not a scientist. I’m just glad this report is hopefully going to open the door to actual scientists and medical ethicists being able to do their jobs instead of being shouted down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly.

They had objective standards for high-quality research. And the major conclusion is that we need more high-quality research before we can recommend when trans kids should get medically transitioned. That evidence may show benefits for some kids. But you simply cannot shut down the need to produce better evidence.

Explain how a double-blind protocol would be designed here. Ethically.

Explain how ethically a child can consent to loss of sexual function and fertility?

The design of research studies is complicated and I don’t pretend to be an expert. But to claim “oh we can’t do those studies therefore you have to accept crap reasearch as THE TRUTH” is totally toxic. Maybe there are some areas where you cannot do controlled research very well. That may be the case, but it doesn’t follow that you can exaggerate the conclusions of the less-definitive research. If all we have is poor quality evidence, then we cannot say “it’s SCIENCE that trans kids should medically transition!”

Children aren’t getting bottom surgery so that’s irrelevant.

Do we need more research? Sure.

Is it complicated to navigate the ethics while designing these studies? Yes.

Should anti-trans activists gatekeep studies because of this? No f-ing way.

It’s pure political posturing to completely ignore the studies that have been done because of the complex nature of the work.

It’s frankly scary how you can be so ignorant yet have your pitchforks out for anyone you deem “anti-trans.” The impact on fertility for children is not due to bottom surgery. It is happens when their reproductive systems cannot develop because they don’t go through normal puberty and then they take cross-sex hormones. That’s the medical care that many kids are getting. It can also impact sexual function as well.

And I know “gate keep” is a trendy term, but wtf is “gate keeping” a scientific study? Do you think research that aligns with your beliefs should be exempt from critique, ie, gatekeeping?

Puberty blockers don’t destroy fertility and hormone treatment happens at an older age. Fertility isn’t truly lost until gonads are removed, if ever. Irrelevant.

Yes, by ignoring substantial amount of work in the field the anti-trans activists are gatekeeping.

Or, if you think this report isn’t biased, I’d love to hear how this supposed ethical, double-blind protocol would work.

I’m not a scientist. I’m just glad this report is hopefully going to open the door to actual scientists and medical ethicists being able to do their jobs instead of being shouted down.

Not an ethicist either, apparently. No matter—you have Views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" it's obvious that has not been happening in many instances, and the fallout from what is likely to be a significant medical scandal is just beginning."

No. It is not obvious. What is obvious is that decades of ignoring transcare has been more detrimental to children and adults a extreme pivot, even if you believe that it's extreme, which I do not.


People who have absolutely no experience with this feel the need to chime in. "Parents are being manipulated. Parents have an agenda. Medical doctors have an agenda."

What do you think their agenda is? Their agenda is the best care of their children and their patients and your endless, useless input on something you have no concept of and do not have to deal with is just exhausting

When I see someone write "I'm tired" or "just exhausting" or something similar, I know they are on ideological weak grounds because they can't argue back convincingly, so they resort to these kinds of tropes.

The Cass report is highly damaging and summarized what many of us long thought and observed.

When I see someone engage in forced/imaginary teaming by referring to themselves as part of an amorphous and ostensibly large group of “us” who share views that cause harm to trans kids, I know they are arguing from ideology and not science.

By the way: if your views are so strongly formed by “the science,” how did you have them before this “highly damaging” report was published, in the era of the rampant suppression you’re convinced existed?

I’m not the PP but the bolded explains a great deal. You don’t understand what an academic study is. Just for reference, it is not the same thing as TikTok. I realize TikTok represents the source of all your knowledge but that is not how most knowledgeable people get information.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

The problem is that accepting even part of the report as true means facing an extremely difficult and cruel reality. It’s unfair and not right, and I don’t blame people for reacting the way they are. Ignorance is probably mentally and emotionally safer.

[Anonymous]

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.

The problem is that accepting even part of the report as true means facing an extremely difficult and cruel reality. It’s unfair and not right, and I don’t blame people for reacting the way they are. Ignorance is probably mentally and emotionally safer.

The anti-Cass Review posters are to the extreme left as Trump defenders are to the extreme right. Both groups are different side of same coin.

They both have been brainwashed into accepting an alternate version of reality. They both are so entrenched in this alternate version of reality that they can’t accept facts that show them the true set of reality.

[Anonymous]

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.

Real question...do you realize how breathtakingly condescending you are? Both to doctors and parents in the trenches?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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).