The Cass Review Final Report

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

They’re still saying that to this day. It’s really an odd phenomenon that I think arose in reaction to Trump. Trump’s outlandish claims and lies drove people so crazy that they decided that the only way to counter it was to declare “the science is settled and you’re a MAGA trumpster Russian troll if you disagree!” And unfortunately major news organizations adopted this tactic as well. It’s all of one piece.

Helen Lewis has a good article in the Atlantic today about this reaction and the anti-science stance in the US:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/cass-report-youth-gender-medicine/678031/

A PP talked about how this was the anti-vax of the left, and I think that is an accurate characterization. In the polarization of Trump, science became secondary to tribal affiliation. It was impossible to have a reasoned discussion on what should have been a scientific discussion. What is truly awful are the medical professionals who had very serious negative career consequences for trying to question the medical treatment plan for gender dysphoric kids. Medical professionals got death threats and lost careers for bringing science to what had clearly become a tribal and religious belief, where science was irrelevant. It is very similar to how medical professional proponents of vaccines were treated.

[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.

Usually a meta analysis will leave out the crap studies.

[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.

Hahahahaha

I am dying over here. Meta analyses are considered the GOLD STANDARD in research. But…you don’t like this one so…it’s crap?

[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.

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.

[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.

Racism is worse now?!?

[Anonymous]

A couple things:

1) Cass seems to not be politically unbiased as she helped collaborate with the group that advised DeSantis on anti-trans legislation in FL. That legislation was put forward by the Alliance Defending Freedom which has an explicit anti-trans agenda.

2) Helen Lewis's piece is similarly from someone who may not be politically unbiased, or at least someone who enjoys clickbait writing (see her recent piece about how the most groundbreaking First Lady in modern history is Melania Trump).

3) I am a parent of a trans child (who had lots of counseling & didn't take any steps toward medical transition until after age 18). Our n of 1 is that our now adult child is much, much happier & healthier post treatment, so of course I am going to read these pieces with a different eye than others. I absolutely would welcome (and most parents of trans kids would welcome) increased mental health supports & lots of research on the efficacy and safety of treatments. I don't think the Cass report is unbiased (see above posters noting that Cass cherry picked studies) nor did I think DeSantis's anti trans legislation was without political motivations. It's hard to separate the politics from straight healthcare concerns when there are hundreds of millions of $ being spent in this country (not sure about the UK) to make trans healthcare the new abortion debate, post Roe. I would strongly encourage those of you without trans children or family members to have some empathy for the politicization of our loved ones in service of political aims that have nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of treatments for our children. Trans people should be safe from discrimination in housing & employment -- and trans parents and children should be able to make medical decisions in private, in consultation with their doctors.

[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.

A meta analysis by definition excludes some studies. I don’t think the Cass report declared that only double blind studies can be cited though. To the extent you want to claim that the handful of studies prove the “science is settled” that’s just not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A couple things:

1) Cass seems to not be politically unbiased as she helped collaborate with the group that advised DeSantis on anti-trans legislation in FL. That legislation was put forward by the Alliance Defending Freedom which has an explicit anti-trans agenda.

2) Helen Lewis's piece is similarly from someone who may not be politically unbiased, or at least someone who enjoys clickbait writing (see her recent piece about how the most groundbreaking First Lady in modern history is Melania Trump).

3) I am a parent of a trans child (who had lots of counseling & didn't take any steps toward medical transition until after age 18). Our n of 1 is that our now adult child is much, much happier & healthier post treatment, so of course I am going to read these pieces with a different eye than others. I absolutely would welcome (and most parents of trans kids would welcome) increased mental health supports & lots of research on the efficacy and safety of treatments. I don't think the Cass report is unbiased (see above posters noting that Cass cherry picked studies) nor did I think DeSantis's anti trans legislation was without political motivations. It's hard to separate the politics from straight healthcare concerns when there are hundreds of millions of $ being spent in this country (not sure about the UK) to make trans healthcare the new abortion debate, post Roe. I would strongly encourage those of you without trans children or family members to have some empathy for the politicization of our loved ones in service of political aims that have nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of treatments for our children. Trans people should be safe from discrimination in housing & employment -- and trans parents and children should be able to make medical decisions in private, in consultation with their doctors.

But politicization of children’s gender health care is very very much coming from both sides in the US. It was the growing insistence on not asking any questions at all about it that led to the reaction in states like Florida. It does not help kids or families at all to declare “the science is settled and you should be fired or ostracized if you ask questions.”

[Anonymous]

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

[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

Are you taking the position that any well-respected scientist or medical researcher who has engaged in any capacity (consulting, a state-funded research project, etc.) with a Republican government is no longer to be trusted? That seems very extreme.

To be clear, I am fully against state bans on care here. But I also recognize that part of the reasons these bans came into existence was the behavior of the medical establishment and the hounding of medical professionals who were trying in good faith to discuss outcomes and the lack of evidence-based care. Your position seems extremely tribal to me, but I may be mistaken. I appreciate your posts, in any event, as they are thoughtful.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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!

[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.

But what precisely do you mean by “align”? What exactly did Cass do with DeSantis that makes you believe her analysis is therefore entirely suspect? She is one of the most pre-eminent and respected pediatricians in the UK, so to discount her analysis—which was also reviewed by many others—because at one point she consulted with a Florida government entity seems unreasonable. What exactly did she do to “align” herself with DeSantis? You may know more about her specific actions here than I do.