Do not assume the Cass Review is scientific. It has been widely discredited by every major medical association and psychological association. The data was purposely distorted and incorrectly gathered. This is a review that transphobic people hold up that actually has no scientific value.
Do not assume the Cass Review is scientific. It has been widely discredited by every major medical association and psychological association. The data was purposely distorted and incorrectly gathered. This is a review that transphobic people hold up that actually has no scientific value.
Pointless! Regardless of your distorted and incorrect view, it no longer matters. The CASS Review's effect is world wide!! It was discussed and introduced into the US Supreme Court as evidence. That is ALL that matters now, and that works for me because it compels even the most ardent transactivist to get real: Does Gender Affirming Care does not reduce suicides?
JUSTICE ALITO: …. "on page 195 of the Cass report, it says: There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide."
MR. STRANGIO: "What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some -- in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is COMPLETED SUICIDE, thankfully and admittedly, IS RARE and we're talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don't necessarily have completed suicides within them."
You are correct about Cass. Don't assume. Look at the report, look at the systematic reviews and look at the individual studies. Start with Chen et al (2023), only two yourh commited suicide while undergoing life saving care.
Assuming would lead one to think you might have something intelligent to say.. One needs to look at the Cass Review for oneself. That will confirm the problems with gender ideology. I am disappointed she tried too hard to be accomodating. There is no room for accomodating the sick minded that put children on a path to a sex change. We have jails for those people. Yes - Read the Cass critical articles. It shows how flimsy these psychopaths are. These are people so bound to their ideology it's painful. I am impressed they have the time these days given so many are now fighting lawsuits for the harms they have done. I just wish they were elevated from civil to criminal.
On May 10, 2022, the first detransitioner lawsuit was filed, against the Permanente Medical Group in California. Seven months later, Camille Kiefel filed a similar lawsuit in Oregon against the Quest Center for Integrative Health, which had performed a double mastectomy on her. Now, the number of detransitioner and wrongful death lawsuits has increased eight-fold, (according to Transition Justice).
No I read the Cass Review myself. I looked at their data. The data they collected was not only a small sample but it was incomplete.
If you run a study over a period of years and you start off with let’s say ten people and you were only able to follow up with five of those people after a year you have to drop the data from your study or say that you were unable to follow up. They did not do that. They intentionally tampered with the data by saying that those who they could not get back in touch with de-transitioned.
They can’t know that. Nobody can know what actually occurred so a scientific approach would have been to throw out the data because you can not draw any conclusions from it. Adding it back in and saying that the result of those 5 unknown people was this or that is unscientific because you can make the data say whatever you personally want. The data said 5 unknown. You should either try harder to find your study subjects or note the lack of result. This is the reason you should have as large of a sample size as possible because you will have some follow up loss.
The second thing that they did was, this study was supposed to be about trans kids but they included kids who did not identify as trans but instead identified as gay or lesbian and enjoyed dressing more masculine or feminine. When they followed up with these subjects they unsurprisingly found that they did not go on to transition. So they marked them down as those who de-transitioned except they never transitioned in the first place.
Thus all of the data is useless for what they were originally trying to measure, which was the rate of de-transition. That’s why I don’t consider it scientifically accurate and neither does any serious scientific orientation.
Not only have you not read the 350+-page Cass Review, I question whether you’ve even read a description of it.
- The Cass Review did not “run a study.” It was a systematic review of other studies.
- The Cass Review did not “collect data.” It was a systematic review of other studies. It did not collect its own original data.
- The Cass Review was not able to follow up with study subjects lost to follow-up. (The fact that so many studies lost a large portion of subjects to follow up is one of the major flaws in those studies.)
- The Cass Review reviewed data from studies of trans-identified kids, not simply gay or lesbian kids.
- If you think “all of the data is useless,” that’s actually not far from the Cass Review’s own conclusions.
- I’m curious which “serious scientific organizations” (I assume you meant that instead of ‘orientations’ ) don’t consider the Cass Review “scientifically accurate.” Note: Erin Reed does not count as a scientific organization.
Do you know how to use Google Scholar? It’s literally been criticised by at least three major studies that specifically assessed the review and its methodology, from British and U.S. clinicians and medico-legal experts. In the past couple of months alone it has been criticised and dismissed in expert guidance from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France and Poland. I’m not going to bother linking to the studies and policy docs, because we both know you won’t read it. But if you actually give a fuck and you’re willing to have your views challenged by actual science there is plenty of scientific critique out there. But again, you won’t bother.
Well get over it - Cass Review is your ideological downfall and regardless of what you think, it was discussed and introduced into the US Supreme Court as evidence. That works for me because it compels even the most ardent trans=activist to get real:
Does Gender Affirming Care does not reduce suicides?
JUSTICE ALITO: …. on page 195 of the Cass report, it says: There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide.
MR. STRANGIO: What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some -- in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare and we're talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don't necessarily have completed suicides within them.
You can literally present any document of any background in the courts. This is no way increases its credibility. This is on par with anti- vaccine autism “research” being peddled around the country.
Yeah, the fact that the US Supreme Court accepts the Cass Review is almost proof of how transphobic and poor quality it is, given the shit show you guys have over there. If that’s your source of validation rather than, you know, all the actual scientists and clinicians who’ve denounced it because they’ve actually read the research and see that science backs gender-affirming care, then you’re admitting you have no single clue what you’re talking about and you’re just a transphobic ideologue.
The Supreme Court isn't my source for validation. I can't help you with your confusion on the evidence. I have already post several studies in this thread. If being concerned about the loss of life puts me in the transphobic camp - count me in - but I am afraid that grasping at the "transphobe" slur is typically the last straw for an ideologue once there is no points left. I will simply refer you to GENSPECT and SEGM among many others that raise serious concerns. By the way, have you seen the WPATH clinicians discussing "informed consent" and "making children happier in the moment"? These videos are online and they are devastating but I digress.
When it comes to the US Supreme Court they will have the final word when it comes to this woke mind virus contributing to the madness in the United States. One of these days even the left leaning justices will be forced to confront the ethics. The three part test:
1. Can we be absolutely with 100% certainty believe in diagnosing/declaring gender identity in children and that the identity will remain unchanged (persist) throughout their lives? We know the finality of a tooth extraction and a hysterectomy.
2. Must we accept the risk for "misdiagnosis" of minors and its life-altering consequences so that other children can get treatment? (consider the risks for: infertility, lost sexual function and irreversible physical as well as socio-emotional changes)
3. Is it ethical to continue performing gender reassignment on minors, including social transition and the indoctrinating effects of "teaching gender", especially if there is evidence this can lead to confusion and result in premature loss of life? The callous disregard for the growing body count among those who are on their gender journey is disturbing. We know this is a very long list. Once the judges are presented with the evidence their is an ethical responsibility. It is the one the bodies overseeing healthcare are failing to live by.
Note: in the study below two lives were lost to suicide. How many people need to die before you stop a research trial? Apparently two lives is acceptable collateral damage for what is otherwise "life-saving" treatment. Today, the overwhelming evidence is if you transition you have a increased risk of completed suicide and there are several good quality studies including those documented in the Cass Review:
Chen et al (2023) Psychosocial Functioning in Transgender Youth after 2 Years of Hormones, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on January 19, 2023.
The British Medical Association has specifically taken a neutral position on the Cass Review while it considers the issue further. The British Psychological Society commended Cass for her work on the Review. You may be thinking of US groups, but they do not represent the entirely of scientific thought on the matter, nor are they the most relevant to a review of an NHS service.
Cass Review is going to be a big part of the ideological downfall. I was disappointed the report advocated for studying the use of blockers. This is a massive error given we know the near term euphoria and "gratification" effect comes into play with stopping something that is uncomfortable. Puberty isn't fun so if you stop it, of course it will be a positive outcome in the mind of a child.
Its the adults that are supposed to be thinking about long term consequences. Sadly even the medical professionals have lost their collective minds and you can even find WPATH's Dr Dan Metzger and Dr. Dianne Berg on You Tube talking about making a kid "happier in the moment" despite the regret that comes later and they even admit "informed consent" is NOT really informed or meaningful.
Regardless, the CASS Review's effect is world wide!! It was discussed and introduced into the US Supreme Court as evidence. That is ALL that matters now and that works for me because it compels even the most ardent transactivist to get real: Does Gender Affirming Care does not reduce suicides?
JUSTICE ALITO: …. "on page 195 of the Cass report, it says: There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide."
MR. STRANGIO: "What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some -- in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is COMPLETED SUICIDE, thankfully and admittedly, IS RARE and we're talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don't necessarily have completed suicides within them."
Your link basically says that the BMA acknowledges that the Cass Review wasn’t scientifically accurate and that they will have to do their own review WITH the input of lived experience from transgender people.
If you can’t interpret what your own article says that’s not my problem.
BMA said they they would like to remain neutral (sounds good because that’s what science actually is) and seeks to conduct its own evaluation (now why would they have to do that if the “evidence” of the Cass Review wasn’t so fucked? If it was solid science then it would stand on its own but it doesn’t).
"The BMA is not aiming to replicate the Cass Review. The Chair of our task and finish group has set out to Council how we will listen to those with lived experience either as patients or as clinicians” do you know what lived experience means? It means they will hear from transgender people.
It’s all right there 🤷♂️ but if you want to misinterpret your own source go ahead.
Is that the same British Psychological Society that recently had members of several anti-trans groups and a sociologist who was outed by his university as running an anonymous account that specifically existed to abuse and troll trans people speak at their conference in the issue of trans healthcare? That British Psychological Society?
And the same Cass who has been widely criticised for promoting anti-trans literature prior to being hired to lead the Cass Review, who met with US anti-LGBTQ groups, and secretly hired members of designated anti-LGBTQ hate groups to the board of the Cass Review? The same Cass that has contradicted the less extreme recommendations of her own report since it was published to fit the government’s narrative and ensure she got her peerage? The same Cass that had zero prior expertise in transgender healthcare, and was suspiciously the only person considered for the role, by government ministers who later admitted they did so as part of a wider recruitment of anti-trans individuals into government positions to ensure their ideological viewpoints informed the review? The same Cass that, instead of responding to methodological critique from relevant experts from around the world, as any good scientist should, dismissed them as keyboard warriors? That Cass?
Do you actually know anything about Cass or her review beyond mainstream media headlines?
Some pretty bold claims in there, but I have no desire to get into them with you. Simply pointing out that arguments from authority don't work very well when authorities disagree — clearly people are allowed to disagree with authorities, as you disagree with the BPS — or when you pick and choose which authorities matter based on how closely they agree with you.
If the authorities you do like changed their tune on this, would you change your mind? If not, don't expect others to change theirs.
Would love to hear an example of a specific thing that was wrong in the Cass review. Do you have one to give so I can get a sense of what it got so wrong?
The BMA calls for a review of the Cass Review because of “…its unsubstantiated recommendations driven by unexplained study protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria…”
Ironically, existing protocols in place and trans-affirming “evidence” are unsubstantiated themselves.
If you reject the Cass Review for poor quality research, you must also reject current trans-affirming research and treatments for the same reason.
Until research has been done that satisfies both sides of the argument, which is likely impossible, then all treatments should be stopped except in emergency cases. Although what an emergency case looks like, I have no idea.
So, you think trans people talking about a subject that they have extensive personal experience with and knowledge about is “biased” and you would rather NO transgender people talk about transgender rights? Should we just leave it to cisgender people to talk ABOUT us rather than TO us?
The person you linked supports experimental surgeries for children and medicine that results in sterility. And supports men in women’s sports. They are not a serious resource.
I'd go so far as to describe it as a propaganda piece couched in scientifically sounding language and misappropriated, googleable scientific terms - so it *looks* like science for the gullible public and politicians. Which especially easy when people already have confirmation bias.
It's scientific forgery and should be handled as a medical scandal, especially because of the damage it already has done.
Do not assume the Cass Review is scientific. It has been widely discredited by every major medical association and psychological association. The data was purposely distorted and incorrectly gathered. This is a review that transphobic people hold up that actually has no scientific value.
Pointless! Regardless of your distorted and incorrect view, it no longer matters. The CASS Review's effect is world wide!! It was discussed and introduced into the US Supreme Court as evidence. That is ALL that matters now, and that works for me because it compels even the most ardent transactivist to get real: Does Gender Affirming Care does not reduce suicides?
JUSTICE ALITO: …. "on page 195 of the Cass report, it says: There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide."
MR. STRANGIO: "What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some -- in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is COMPLETED SUICIDE, thankfully and admittedly, IS RARE and we're talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don't necessarily have completed suicides within them."
Sure thing, Will.
You are very persuasive.
You are coming to a gunfight with a plastic spoon.
Thankfully, the public is waking up to the evil of gaslighting children and their clueless parents that the only solution is a sex change.
You are correct about Cass. Don't assume. Look at the report, look at the systematic reviews and look at the individual studies. Start with Chen et al (2023), only two yourh commited suicide while undergoing life saving care.
Assuming would lead one to think you might have something intelligent to say.. One needs to look at the Cass Review for oneself. That will confirm the problems with gender ideology. I am disappointed she tried too hard to be accomodating. There is no room for accomodating the sick minded that put children on a path to a sex change. We have jails for those people. Yes - Read the Cass critical articles. It shows how flimsy these psychopaths are. These are people so bound to their ideology it's painful. I am impressed they have the time these days given so many are now fighting lawsuits for the harms they have done. I just wish they were elevated from civil to criminal.
On May 10, 2022, the first detransitioner lawsuit was filed, against the Permanente Medical Group in California. Seven months later, Camille Kiefel filed a similar lawsuit in Oregon against the Quest Center for Integrative Health, which had performed a double mastectomy on her. Now, the number of detransitioner and wrongful death lawsuits has increased eight-fold, (according to Transition Justice).
“It has been widely discredited”
Ha ha what?
This is absolutely false. Did you hear this on TikTok or something?
No I read the Cass Review myself. I looked at their data. The data they collected was not only a small sample but it was incomplete.
If you run a study over a period of years and you start off with let’s say ten people and you were only able to follow up with five of those people after a year you have to drop the data from your study or say that you were unable to follow up. They did not do that. They intentionally tampered with the data by saying that those who they could not get back in touch with de-transitioned.
They can’t know that. Nobody can know what actually occurred so a scientific approach would have been to throw out the data because you can not draw any conclusions from it. Adding it back in and saying that the result of those 5 unknown people was this or that is unscientific because you can make the data say whatever you personally want. The data said 5 unknown. You should either try harder to find your study subjects or note the lack of result. This is the reason you should have as large of a sample size as possible because you will have some follow up loss.
The second thing that they did was, this study was supposed to be about trans kids but they included kids who did not identify as trans but instead identified as gay or lesbian and enjoyed dressing more masculine or feminine. When they followed up with these subjects they unsurprisingly found that they did not go on to transition. So they marked them down as those who de-transitioned except they never transitioned in the first place.
Thus all of the data is useless for what they were originally trying to measure, which was the rate of de-transition. That’s why I don’t consider it scientifically accurate and neither does any serious scientific orientation.
Not only have you not read the 350+-page Cass Review, I question whether you’ve even read a description of it.
- The Cass Review did not “run a study.” It was a systematic review of other studies.
- The Cass Review did not “collect data.” It was a systematic review of other studies. It did not collect its own original data.
- The Cass Review was not able to follow up with study subjects lost to follow-up. (The fact that so many studies lost a large portion of subjects to follow up is one of the major flaws in those studies.)
- The Cass Review reviewed data from studies of trans-identified kids, not simply gay or lesbian kids.
- If you think “all of the data is useless,” that’s actually not far from the Cass Review’s own conclusions.
- I’m curious which “serious scientific organizations” (I assume you meant that instead of ‘orientations’ ) don’t consider the Cass Review “scientifically accurate.” Note: Erin Reed does not count as a scientific organization.
It's been discredited by those journals that cannot define what a woman is?
Oh no!
Anyway.
“It has been widely discredited by every major medical association and psychological association.”
This is an extraordinary, and incorrect statement. Please provide evidence of ‘every’. Your hyperbole undermines anything that follows.
Do you know how to use Google Scholar? It’s literally been criticised by at least three major studies that specifically assessed the review and its methodology, from British and U.S. clinicians and medico-legal experts. In the past couple of months alone it has been criticised and dismissed in expert guidance from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France and Poland. I’m not going to bother linking to the studies and policy docs, because we both know you won’t read it. But if you actually give a fuck and you’re willing to have your views challenged by actual science there is plenty of scientific critique out there. But again, you won’t bother.
Well get over it - Cass Review is your ideological downfall and regardless of what you think, it was discussed and introduced into the US Supreme Court as evidence. That works for me because it compels even the most ardent trans=activist to get real:
Does Gender Affirming Care does not reduce suicides?
JUSTICE ALITO: …. on page 195 of the Cass report, it says: There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide.
MR. STRANGIO: What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some -- in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare and we're talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don't necessarily have completed suicides within them.
You can literally present any document of any background in the courts. This is no way increases its credibility. This is on par with anti- vaccine autism “research” being peddled around the country.
Yeah, the fact that the US Supreme Court accepts the Cass Review is almost proof of how transphobic and poor quality it is, given the shit show you guys have over there. If that’s your source of validation rather than, you know, all the actual scientists and clinicians who’ve denounced it because they’ve actually read the research and see that science backs gender-affirming care, then you’re admitting you have no single clue what you’re talking about and you’re just a transphobic ideologue.
The Supreme Court isn't my source for validation. I can't help you with your confusion on the evidence. I have already post several studies in this thread. If being concerned about the loss of life puts me in the transphobic camp - count me in - but I am afraid that grasping at the "transphobe" slur is typically the last straw for an ideologue once there is no points left. I will simply refer you to GENSPECT and SEGM among many others that raise serious concerns. By the way, have you seen the WPATH clinicians discussing "informed consent" and "making children happier in the moment"? These videos are online and they are devastating but I digress.
When it comes to the US Supreme Court they will have the final word when it comes to this woke mind virus contributing to the madness in the United States. One of these days even the left leaning justices will be forced to confront the ethics. The three part test:
1. Can we be absolutely with 100% certainty believe in diagnosing/declaring gender identity in children and that the identity will remain unchanged (persist) throughout their lives? We know the finality of a tooth extraction and a hysterectomy.
2. Must we accept the risk for "misdiagnosis" of minors and its life-altering consequences so that other children can get treatment? (consider the risks for: infertility, lost sexual function and irreversible physical as well as socio-emotional changes)
3. Is it ethical to continue performing gender reassignment on minors, including social transition and the indoctrinating effects of "teaching gender", especially if there is evidence this can lead to confusion and result in premature loss of life? The callous disregard for the growing body count among those who are on their gender journey is disturbing. We know this is a very long list. Once the judges are presented with the evidence their is an ethical responsibility. It is the one the bodies overseeing healthcare are failing to live by.
Note: in the study below two lives were lost to suicide. How many people need to die before you stop a research trial? Apparently two lives is acceptable collateral damage for what is otherwise "life-saving" treatment. Today, the overwhelming evidence is if you transition you have a increased risk of completed suicide and there are several good quality studies including those documented in the Cass Review:
Chen et al (2023) Psychosocial Functioning in Transgender Youth after 2 Years of Hormones, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on January 19, 2023.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2206297
This is not true.
Here in NZ as well I was so hoping this was a nuanced and honest conversation based on the OP but then I saw the Cass report mentioned 😔
LOL
What are you trying to say here? Is it that you put your trust in tiktok videos?
The British Medical Association has specifically taken a neutral position on the Cass Review while it considers the issue further. The British Psychological Society commended Cass for her work on the Review. You may be thinking of US groups, but they do not represent the entirely of scientific thought on the matter, nor are they the most relevant to a review of an NHS service.
Cass Review is going to be a big part of the ideological downfall. I was disappointed the report advocated for studying the use of blockers. This is a massive error given we know the near term euphoria and "gratification" effect comes into play with stopping something that is uncomfortable. Puberty isn't fun so if you stop it, of course it will be a positive outcome in the mind of a child.
Its the adults that are supposed to be thinking about long term consequences. Sadly even the medical professionals have lost their collective minds and you can even find WPATH's Dr Dan Metzger and Dr. Dianne Berg on You Tube talking about making a kid "happier in the moment" despite the regret that comes later and they even admit "informed consent" is NOT really informed or meaningful.
Regardless, the CASS Review's effect is world wide!! It was discussed and introduced into the US Supreme Court as evidence. That is ALL that matters now and that works for me because it compels even the most ardent transactivist to get real: Does Gender Affirming Care does not reduce suicides?
JUSTICE ALITO: …. "on page 195 of the Cass report, it says: There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide."
MR. STRANGIO: "What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some -- in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is COMPLETED SUICIDE, thankfully and admittedly, IS RARE and we're talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don't necessarily have completed suicides within them."
I can tell that you did not click on or read the article 🙄 So I should conclude that you are not interested in facts or science.
This is more recent than your link: https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/bma-confirms-support-to-undertake-its-evaluation-of-the-cass-review-from-a-position-of-neutrality
Your link basically says that the BMA acknowledges that the Cass Review wasn’t scientifically accurate and that they will have to do their own review WITH the input of lived experience from transgender people.
Yeah, no it doesn't. I do hope you have a good day, though.
If you can’t interpret what your own article says that’s not my problem.
BMA said they they would like to remain neutral (sounds good because that’s what science actually is) and seeks to conduct its own evaluation (now why would they have to do that if the “evidence” of the Cass Review wasn’t so fucked? If it was solid science then it would stand on its own but it doesn’t).
"The BMA is not aiming to replicate the Cass Review. The Chair of our task and finish group has set out to Council how we will listen to those with lived experience either as patients or as clinicians” do you know what lived experience means? It means they will hear from transgender people.
It’s all right there 🤷♂️ but if you want to misinterpret your own source go ahead.
Is that the same British Psychological Society that recently had members of several anti-trans groups and a sociologist who was outed by his university as running an anonymous account that specifically existed to abuse and troll trans people speak at their conference in the issue of trans healthcare? That British Psychological Society?
And the same Cass who has been widely criticised for promoting anti-trans literature prior to being hired to lead the Cass Review, who met with US anti-LGBTQ groups, and secretly hired members of designated anti-LGBTQ hate groups to the board of the Cass Review? The same Cass that has contradicted the less extreme recommendations of her own report since it was published to fit the government’s narrative and ensure she got her peerage? The same Cass that had zero prior expertise in transgender healthcare, and was suspiciously the only person considered for the role, by government ministers who later admitted they did so as part of a wider recruitment of anti-trans individuals into government positions to ensure their ideological viewpoints informed the review? The same Cass that, instead of responding to methodological critique from relevant experts from around the world, as any good scientist should, dismissed them as keyboard warriors? That Cass?
Do you actually know anything about Cass or her review beyond mainstream media headlines?
Some pretty bold claims in there, but I have no desire to get into them with you. Simply pointing out that arguments from authority don't work very well when authorities disagree — clearly people are allowed to disagree with authorities, as you disagree with the BPS — or when you pick and choose which authorities matter based on how closely they agree with you.
If the authorities you do like changed their tune on this, would you change your mind? If not, don't expect others to change theirs.
Would love to hear an example of a specific thing that was wrong in the Cass review. Do you have one to give so I can get a sense of what it got so wrong?
Read this and check out the citations. You will find your answers 👇
https://open.substack.com/pub/erininthemorn/p/british-medical-association-calls?r=2cgrub&utm_medium=ios
“Read Erin in the Morning” 😂
The BMA calls for a review of the Cass Review because of “…its unsubstantiated recommendations driven by unexplained study protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria…”
Ironically, existing protocols in place and trans-affirming “evidence” are unsubstantiated themselves.
If you reject the Cass Review for poor quality research, you must also reject current trans-affirming research and treatments for the same reason.
Until research has been done that satisfies both sides of the argument, which is likely impossible, then all treatments should be stopped except in emergency cases. Although what an emergency case looks like, I have no idea.
Talk about an unbiased source lmao
So, you think trans people talking about a subject that they have extensive personal experience with and knowledge about is “biased” and you would rather NO transgender people talk about transgender rights? Should we just leave it to cisgender people to talk ABOUT us rather than TO us?
The person you linked supports experimental surgeries for children and medicine that results in sterility. And supports men in women’s sports. They are not a serious resource.
I'd go so far as to describe it as a propaganda piece couched in scientifically sounding language and misappropriated, googleable scientific terms - so it *looks* like science for the gullible public and politicians. Which especially easy when people already have confirmation bias.
It's scientific forgery and should be handled as a medical scandal, especially because of the damage it already has done.
“…so it *looks* like science for the gullible public and politicians.”
No, that’s what Stonewall did in the UK, and ACON in Australia.