I don't think so. The legal test is based on like for like, in layman's terms, a blind person would be judged on how an ordinary blind person would act, A child on how an ordinary child would act so on and so forth. Ordinary defined as a person of average caution, care and consideration. The test is considered objective rather than subjective.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
I’ve worked for both the police and council (as well as another child social organisation) covering various issues with young people and there are stories which blew my mind. And it’s shocking how many vulnerable people can be coerced into surreal things or viewpoints. It’s dangerous. And when there is so much on social media now about being trans or gay, some fool themselves into it for acceptance. The other side needs to be expressed without being called “transphobic” for stating perfectly reasonable points without any hint of hate
Has there been a big issue in Scotland with police prosecuting reasonable views or criticisms with regards to non-western immigrants as racism?
If not, is there reason to believe there's going to be an uptick in prosecution of reasonable views or criticisms with regards to gender, sexuality, age or religion going forward?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You are the one arguing for the need of this new legislation. One of my objections is it is vague and open to interpretation and therefore potentially one sided in its application.
Yet here you are asking me to justify its introduction for you by defining the distinction between existing law and the new law.
Nice try but that is on you as a proponent.
So lets get down to brass tacks,
What is it that a person can currently say which you want them investigated by the police for, leading to charging, convicting and sentencing, which could not have happened under the old law?
Last edited:
Would love to see Humza asked this question, since its his baby and the only policy shift he's ever achieved in government.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
pronoun disclosure bad, they/them worse. nothing unexpected. replies are the usual.
Not surprised.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68770641
This isn't a subject that I'm well versed in but I understand this report has been pending for a while and it seems to be in a lot of news sources.
There is a link to the actual report in the BBC article.
This isn't a subject that I'm well versed in but I understand this report has been pending for a while and it seems to be in a lot of news sources.
There is a link to the actual report in the BBC article.
The tl;dr version:
Overview of key findings
- There is no simple explanation for the increase in the numbers of predominantly young people and young adults who have a trans or gender diverse identity, but there is broad agreement that it is a result of a complex interplay between biological, psychological and social factors. This balance of factors will be different in each individual.
- There are conflicting views about the clinical approach, with expectations of care at times being far from usual clinical practice. This has made some clinicians fearful of working with gender-questioning young people, despite their presentation being similar to many children and young people presenting to other NHS services.
- An appraisal of international guidelines for care and treatment of children and young people with gender incongruence found that that no single guideline could be applied in its entirety to the NHS in England.
- While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.
- The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate.
- The controversy surrounding the use of medical treatments has taken focus away from what the individualised care and treatment is intended to achieve for individuals seeking support from NHS gender services.
- The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
- The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.
- Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.
- For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.
- Innovation is important if medicine is to move forward, but there must be a proportionate level of monitoring, oversight and regulation that does not stifle progress, while preventing creep of unproven approaches into clinical practice. Innovation must draw from and contribute to the evidence base.
The recommendations set out a different approach to healthcare, more closely aligned with usual NHS clinical practice that considers the young person holistically and not solely in terms of their gender-related distress. The central aim of assessment should be to help young people to thrive and achieve their life goals.
- Services must operate to the same standards as other services seeing children and young people with complex presentations and/or additional risk factors.
- Expand capacity through a distributed service model, based in paediatric services and with stronger links between secondary and specialist services.
- Children/ young people referred to NHS gender services must receive a holistic assessment of their needs to inform an individualised care plan. This should include screening for neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, and a mental health assessment.
- Standard evidence based psychological and psychopharmacological treatment approaches should be used to support the management of the associated distress from gender incongruence and cooccurring conditions, including support for parents/carers and siblings as appropriate.
- Services should establish a separate pathway for pre-pubertal children and their families. ensuring that they are prioritised for early discussion about how parents can best support their child in a balanced and non-judgemental way. When families/carers are making decisions about social transition of pre-pubertal children, services should ensure that they can be seen as early as possible by a clinical professional with relevant experience.
- NHS England should ensure that each Regional Centre has a follow-through service for 17–25-year-olds; either by extending the range of the regional children and young people’s service or through linked services, to ensure continuity of care and support at a potentially vulnerable stage in their journey. This will also allow clinical, and research follow up data to be collected.
- There needs to be provision for people considering detransition, recognising that they may not wish to re-engage with the services whose care they were previously under.
- A full programme of research should be established to look at the characteristics, interventions and outcomes of every young person presenting to the NHS gender services.
- The puberty blocker trial previously announced by NHS England should be part of a programme of research which also evaluates outcomes of psychosocial interventions and masculinising/ feminising hormones.
- The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. Every case considered for medical treatment should be discussed at a national Multi- Disciplinary Team (MDT).
- Implications of private healthcare on any future requests to the NHS for treatment, monitoring and/or involvement in research, and the dispensing responsibilities of pharmacists of private prescriptions needs to be clearly communicated.
Thank you - I definitely needed a TL;DR of the full report!
Yeah, the coverage in newspapers/websites tend to focus on the most inflammatory elements and ignore a lot of the more boring/practical recommendations. It looks like a very good/thorough report.
Er…is there any evidence to this ? Is it even something we can have evidence for ? Seems a bit insane
I was curious as well so googled it. They studied kids with a condition that increased adrenal androgen production against a control group.Er…is there any evidence to this ? Is it even something we can have evidence for ? Seems a bit insane
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7856278/
Thanks will give this a read.
@Sweet Square
This is from Erin Reed, an American journalist and transgender rights activist (by her own description).
I thought it would be useful to at least post the critique of the report.
Cass Met With DeSantis Pick Over Trans Ban: Her Review Now Targets England Trans Care
The review, released Wednesday, calls for restrictions on trans care, social transition, and transgender adults up to the age of 25 from entering adult trans health treatment in England.
On Tuesday evening, Dr. Hilary Cass released a final report commissioned by the NHS, widely expected to target gender-affirming care. The report met these expectations, calling for restrictions on gender-affirming care and social transition, and even advocated for blocking transgender adults under the age of 25 from entering adult care. To justify these recommendations, the review dismissed over 100 studies on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality, applying standards that are unattainable and not required of most other pediatric medicine. Conducted in a manner similar to the anti-trans review by the DeSantis-handpicked Board of Medicine in Florida, which Cass reportedly collaborated on, the report and its reviews are likely to underpin further crackdowns on trans care globally.
The 388-page report featured 32 recommendations on how transgender care should be conducted within NHS England. It incorrectly claims that there is “no good evidence” supporting transgender care and calls for restrictions on trans care for individuals under the age of 18, although it does not advocate for an outright ban. The report endorses the idea that being transgender may be caused by anxiety, depression, and OCD issues, despite the American Psychological Association, the largest psychological association in the world, rebutting this as lacking evidence. It also claims that transgender individuals can be “influenced” into being trans, a nod to the discredited theory of social contagion and rapid onset gender dysphoria, rejected by over 60 mental health organizations. Lastly, it seemingly endorses restrictions on transgender people under the age of 25, stating that they should not be allowed to progress into adult care clinics.
To support these recommendations, the report was released alongside “reviews” of the evidence surrounding transgender care, using these reviews to assert that there is "no good evidence" for gender-affirming care. A closer inspection of the reviews released alongside the Cass report reveals that 101 out of 103 studies on gender-affirming care were dismissed for not being of "sufficiently high quality," based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale—a subjective scale criticized for its flaws and potential unreliability due to a high risk of bias. This critique is particularly significant given the contentious political nature of the subject and connections between reviewers, Cass, and anti-trans organizations.
The Cass Review seems to have emulated the Florida Review, which employed a similar method to justify bans on trans care in the state—a process criticized as politically motivated by the Human Rights Campaign. Notably, Hilary Cass met with Patrick Hunter, a member of the anti-trans Catholic Medical Association who played a significant role in the development of the Florida Review and Standards of Care under Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. Patrick Hunter was chosen specifically by the governor, who has exhibited fierce opposition towards LGBTQ+ and especially transgender people, and then immediately got to work on targeting transgender care. The Florida review was purportedly designed and manipulated with the intention of having "care effectively banned" from the outset, as revealed by court documents. The Florida Review was slammed by Yale Researchers as “not a serious scientific analysis, but rather, a document crafted to serve a political agenda,” and much of their full critique is applicable to the Cass Review as well.
In those meetings, Cass apparently took interest in Florida’s anti-trans expert report, according to emails from trial exhibits uncovered by transgender researcher Zinnia Jones, such as this email confirming that a meeting took place:
One of the most controversial sections of the Cass Review addresses social transition, with the review recommending that individuals considering social transition "be seen as early as possible" by clinical professionals. It claims that social transition could "change the outcome of gender identity development," a statement that notably lacks the validation or evidence level that the review demands of transgender care. Significantly, there has been discussion about prohibiting social transition in schools, even with parental consent. A recent bill proposed by former Prime Minister Liz Truss would have prevented public officials from using language or treating a child "in a manner inconsistent with their sex," leaving unclear how individuals should be treated differently based on their sex.
The Cass Review also touches on gendered toys, suggesting that preferences like trucks for boys and dolls for girls might have a biological basis, despite significant controversy over such claims, with a recent study casting doubt on earlier monkey studies used to justify biological differences in toy preferences. “A common assumption is that toy choice and other gender role behaviours are solely a result of social influences; for example, that boys will only be given trucks and girls will only be given dolls to play with. Although this is partially true, there is evidence for prenatal and postnatal hormonal influence on these behaviours,” writes Cass in the report. To support arguments around potentially high detransition/desistance rates, Cass repeatedly cites Ken Zucker, including the often-challenged “85%” rate from his research. Notably, Zucker has recommended that parents withhold “wrongly-gendered” toys from their children as a strategy to change their gender identity.
Of special note is the focus on those from ages 17-25. The Cass review states that transgender people should not be transferred into adult care until age 25. Among its rationale for doing so is that those who have been waiting for youth care, with waitlists often being over 5 years long, have that waiting time counted towards the wait for adult services. Instead, the review proposes a “follow through” service, declaring transgender 17-25 year old’s as “vulnerable.” It is uncertain what level of restrictions this follow through service would have.
Within a day of the publication of the Cass Review, it appears that those concerns were well warranted. NHS England announced that it would be launching a review into “the operation and delivery of adult GDCs” in a report released by The Guardian. The decision to launch a review into adult care was justified by “concerns put to the [Cass] review team by current and former staff working in the adult gender clinics about clinical practice, particularly in regard to individuals with complex co-presentations and undiagnosed conditions.”
Immediately after the release of the Cass Review, experts in transgender healthcare from around the world voiced their opposition to its findings. Dr. Portia Predny, Vice President of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health, criticized the findings and recommendations as “at odds with the current evidence base, expert consensus, and the majority of clinical guidelines worldwide.” Similarly, a statement from the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa condemned the review, noting, “The Review commissioned several systematic reviews into gender-affirming care by the University of York, but appears to have ignored a significant number of studies demonstrating the benefits of gender-affirming care. In one review, 101 out of 103 studies were dismissed.”
It is important to note that gender affirming care saves lives, and there is plenty of evidence to show for it. Numerous studies have demonstrated that gender-affirming care significantly reduces suicidality, with some showing a decrease in suicidality by up to 73%. A review compiled by Cornell University, which compiled over 50 journal articles on the topic, shows the efficacy of transgender care. These findings were echoed recently in an article published by the Journal of Adolescent Health, which found that puberty blockers dramatically lowered depression and anxiety. All of these studies and more have led to The Lancet, a medical journal with international acclaim, to publish a letter stating that gender affirming care is lifesaving preventative care. The largest and most influential medical organizations support trans care. A recent and historic policy resolution passed overwhelmingly by the American Psychological Association, the largest psychological organization in the world, states that gender affirming care is a medical necessity and that being trans is not “caused” by things like autism and PTSD.
While the full impact of the Cass Review will not be known for some time, it is likely to significantly affect England, where transgender care is already heavily gatekept with extremely long waitlists. Additionally, it is probable that anti-trans organizations in the United States will cite the review to justify further bans on care. However, similar to other "reviews" conducted in countries or states like Florida, where transgender medical rights are under attack, the review is unlikely to be given much credence by many United States judges, legislators in states without significant political opposition to care, and medical organizations that have remained steadfast in combating anti-trans disinformation. Nevertheless, worldwide, the Cass Review carries forward the same types of attacks advanced in Florida, and could have significant negative impacts on transgender people globally should their recommendations be put into effect.
This is from Erin Reed, an American journalist and transgender rights activist (by her own description).
I thought it would be useful to at least post the critique of the report.
Cass Met With DeSantis Pick Over Trans Ban: Her Review Now Targets England Trans Care
The review, released Wednesday, calls for restrictions on trans care, social transition, and transgender adults up to the age of 25 from entering adult trans health treatment in England.
On Tuesday evening, Dr. Hilary Cass released a final report commissioned by the NHS, widely expected to target gender-affirming care. The report met these expectations, calling for restrictions on gender-affirming care and social transition, and even advocated for blocking transgender adults under the age of 25 from entering adult care. To justify these recommendations, the review dismissed over 100 studies on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality, applying standards that are unattainable and not required of most other pediatric medicine. Conducted in a manner similar to the anti-trans review by the DeSantis-handpicked Board of Medicine in Florida, which Cass reportedly collaborated on, the report and its reviews are likely to underpin further crackdowns on trans care globally.
The 388-page report featured 32 recommendations on how transgender care should be conducted within NHS England. It incorrectly claims that there is “no good evidence” supporting transgender care and calls for restrictions on trans care for individuals under the age of 18, although it does not advocate for an outright ban. The report endorses the idea that being transgender may be caused by anxiety, depression, and OCD issues, despite the American Psychological Association, the largest psychological association in the world, rebutting this as lacking evidence. It also claims that transgender individuals can be “influenced” into being trans, a nod to the discredited theory of social contagion and rapid onset gender dysphoria, rejected by over 60 mental health organizations. Lastly, it seemingly endorses restrictions on transgender people under the age of 25, stating that they should not be allowed to progress into adult care clinics.
To support these recommendations, the report was released alongside “reviews” of the evidence surrounding transgender care, using these reviews to assert that there is "no good evidence" for gender-affirming care. A closer inspection of the reviews released alongside the Cass report reveals that 101 out of 103 studies on gender-affirming care were dismissed for not being of "sufficiently high quality," based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale—a subjective scale criticized for its flaws and potential unreliability due to a high risk of bias. This critique is particularly significant given the contentious political nature of the subject and connections between reviewers, Cass, and anti-trans organizations.
The Cass Review seems to have emulated the Florida Review, which employed a similar method to justify bans on trans care in the state—a process criticized as politically motivated by the Human Rights Campaign. Notably, Hilary Cass met with Patrick Hunter, a member of the anti-trans Catholic Medical Association who played a significant role in the development of the Florida Review and Standards of Care under Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. Patrick Hunter was chosen specifically by the governor, who has exhibited fierce opposition towards LGBTQ+ and especially transgender people, and then immediately got to work on targeting transgender care. The Florida review was purportedly designed and manipulated with the intention of having "care effectively banned" from the outset, as revealed by court documents. The Florida Review was slammed by Yale Researchers as “not a serious scientific analysis, but rather, a document crafted to serve a political agenda,” and much of their full critique is applicable to the Cass Review as well.
In those meetings, Cass apparently took interest in Florida’s anti-trans expert report, according to emails from trial exhibits uncovered by transgender researcher Zinnia Jones, such as this email confirming that a meeting took place:
Notably, Patrick Hunter has been identified as part of a network of anti-trans experts who seek to roll back gains for queer and trans rights by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and both the Florida Review and the Cass Review serve those functions.
One of the most controversial sections of the Cass Review addresses social transition, with the review recommending that individuals considering social transition "be seen as early as possible" by clinical professionals. It claims that social transition could "change the outcome of gender identity development," a statement that notably lacks the validation or evidence level that the review demands of transgender care. Significantly, there has been discussion about prohibiting social transition in schools, even with parental consent. A recent bill proposed by former Prime Minister Liz Truss would have prevented public officials from using language or treating a child "in a manner inconsistent with their sex," leaving unclear how individuals should be treated differently based on their sex.
The Cass Review also touches on gendered toys, suggesting that preferences like trucks for boys and dolls for girls might have a biological basis, despite significant controversy over such claims, with a recent study casting doubt on earlier monkey studies used to justify biological differences in toy preferences. “A common assumption is that toy choice and other gender role behaviours are solely a result of social influences; for example, that boys will only be given trucks and girls will only be given dolls to play with. Although this is partially true, there is evidence for prenatal and postnatal hormonal influence on these behaviours,” writes Cass in the report. To support arguments around potentially high detransition/desistance rates, Cass repeatedly cites Ken Zucker, including the often-challenged “85%” rate from his research. Notably, Zucker has recommended that parents withhold “wrongly-gendered” toys from their children as a strategy to change their gender identity.
Of special note is the focus on those from ages 17-25. The Cass review states that transgender people should not be transferred into adult care until age 25. Among its rationale for doing so is that those who have been waiting for youth care, with waitlists often being over 5 years long, have that waiting time counted towards the wait for adult services. Instead, the review proposes a “follow through” service, declaring transgender 17-25 year old’s as “vulnerable.” It is uncertain what level of restrictions this follow through service would have.
Within a day of the publication of the Cass Review, it appears that those concerns were well warranted. NHS England announced that it would be launching a review into “the operation and delivery of adult GDCs” in a report released by The Guardian. The decision to launch a review into adult care was justified by “concerns put to the [Cass] review team by current and former staff working in the adult gender clinics about clinical practice, particularly in regard to individuals with complex co-presentations and undiagnosed conditions.”
Immediately after the release of the Cass Review, experts in transgender healthcare from around the world voiced their opposition to its findings. Dr. Portia Predny, Vice President of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health, criticized the findings and recommendations as “at odds with the current evidence base, expert consensus, and the majority of clinical guidelines worldwide.” Similarly, a statement from the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa condemned the review, noting, “The Review commissioned several systematic reviews into gender-affirming care by the University of York, but appears to have ignored a significant number of studies demonstrating the benefits of gender-affirming care. In one review, 101 out of 103 studies were dismissed.”
It is important to note that gender affirming care saves lives, and there is plenty of evidence to show for it. Numerous studies have demonstrated that gender-affirming care significantly reduces suicidality, with some showing a decrease in suicidality by up to 73%. A review compiled by Cornell University, which compiled over 50 journal articles on the topic, shows the efficacy of transgender care. These findings were echoed recently in an article published by the Journal of Adolescent Health, which found that puberty blockers dramatically lowered depression and anxiety. All of these studies and more have led to The Lancet, a medical journal with international acclaim, to publish a letter stating that gender affirming care is lifesaving preventative care. The largest and most influential medical organizations support trans care. A recent and historic policy resolution passed overwhelmingly by the American Psychological Association, the largest psychological organization in the world, states that gender affirming care is a medical necessity and that being trans is not “caused” by things like autism and PTSD.
While the full impact of the Cass Review will not be known for some time, it is likely to significantly affect England, where transgender care is already heavily gatekept with extremely long waitlists. Additionally, it is probable that anti-trans organizations in the United States will cite the review to justify further bans on care. However, similar to other "reviews" conducted in countries or states like Florida, where transgender medical rights are under attack, the review is unlikely to be given much credence by many United States judges, legislators in states without significant political opposition to care, and medical organizations that have remained steadfast in combating anti-trans disinformation. Nevertheless, worldwide, the Cass Review carries forward the same types of attacks advanced in Florida, and could have significant negative impacts on transgender people globally should their recommendations be put into effect.
Finally feels like a light is being shone on the whole thing. Children have been harmed. A massive amount of medical malpractice has occurred.
People have been silenced, sacked and ostracised for just asking for evidence and common sense. A lot of people jumped on this particular culture band wagon and should be ashamed of their complicity in it all.
Sex matters. Biology matters.
People have been silenced, sacked and ostracised for just asking for evidence and common sense. A lot of people jumped on this particular culture band wagon and should be ashamed of their complicity in it all.
Sex matters. Biology matters.
Makes me a bit nostalgic for old skeptics podcasts and their crusades against homeopathy.
But just going on some WPATH data it's interesting that adolescent female transgender patients are now outnumbering males at more than 2 to 1. And the dramatic demographic shift perfectly aligns with the advent of social media, which we all correctly assume is a factor in increasing rates of depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia, particularly among girls.
But just going on some WPATH data it's interesting that adolescent female transgender patients are now outnumbering males at more than 2 to 1. And the dramatic demographic shift perfectly aligns with the advent of social media, which we all correctly assume is a factor in increasing rates of depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia, particularly among girls.
I'm a biologist (well was) and I think it is important to note that biology/nature doesn't give a stuff about such behavior. At least 2000 species display gay or gender fluid behaviors. Only 1 species worries about it. Also important to note that we are talking about gender and not biological sex. Not that biological sex is anywhere as near as binary as the anti-trans mob think it is.
But forget that and sod the benefits to the thousands of kids and adults who are living much happier and more productive lives?
The suggestion that being trans is due to some "cultural bandwagon" is utterly ludicrous and wildly insulting for the people who actual have to deal with these issues.
Last edited:
Say it aint so
Although I suspect lots of pandering to the anti-woke brigade may be in there as well.
Last edited:
The difference between the 2000 species and that one specie that worries about it are politicians. Politicians are using this to manipulate and control the masses. People who think they can tell people what to do with their bodies aren't that hard to control. They are presumptuous enough to think that they have the right to dictate what skin a person should feel comfortable in. They don't think it's acceptable. Well newsflash, the only person who needs to accept it is the person wearing that skin. It's not the politicians or lawmakers or anyone else.
Why do these type of posts always start with “I’m a biologist” what a load of nonsense.
Show me how alll these other species are handing out puberty blockers to their young or hacking off body parts.
And people are very much talking about sex and not gender. There’s been a very deliberate false equivalency of that fact.
Not from what I've read.
Because you raised biology. Obviously.
Bold of you to dismiss a Staff memebers credentials as a load of nonsense.
Also, show me the children who've had body parts hacked off.
What a load of nonsense. Puberty blockers aren't that common but from personal experience (with a family member) not giving them to children with gender identify issues, to delay puberty until they are older and better able to make decisions, is hugely harmful and contributes to truly miserable teenagers, not to mention an uptick in teenage suicide. And your "hacking off body parts" comment is just ludicrous right wing nonsense. Surgery isn't discussed until someone is 17+ and doesn't happen until they are adults. And far from always then.
And what do you mean "false equivalency"? Very obviously biological sex and gender doesn't always match. If it did we wouldn't be discussing this. Are gay people just confused and misled by woke leftys?
Last edited:
In your echo chamber.
I’ll try to be less confrontational. Emotions can run high in these debates and it’s easy not to make one’s position clear.
We shouldn’t be making medical interventions on children when we don’t have the research to back it up. The cas report is clear that medical malpractice has been on a large scale.
Your comments about “common”, teenagers being depressed, and surgery at 17+ aren’t backed up by the evidence or research.
I’m as leftist as they come, I’ve been on every pride march I can since I was 18. It’s hard to get that across on a message forum but i ask you to take the fact I’m not right wing in good faith.
Gender fluidity is real of course. I don’t understand your comment about sex and gender “matching”. What does that mean? you cannot change your biological sex.
It’s interesting to me the way, during Covid, the left were so willing to defer to the opinion of experts (which was, obviously, the correct thing to do) but when medical experts produce a report on something that doesn’t align with their pre-existing world view a cohort of them start rallying around online to frantically try and pick holes in expert opinions and start ad hominem attacks on those who did the research behind them. Which all feels very familiar, only with a different topic and cast of characters.
Then the CAS report is wrong if that is what it says. I you talk to trans people the prevailing view is that intervention is far too conservative.
Puberty blockers are not given out like sweets. Very much the opposite if my families experience is anything to go by. @golden_blunder what say you?
Medical intervention isn't the same as surgery. Surgery is incredibly rare (if ever) before someone is legally an adult.
So why the antipathy to another gender related issue? Trans people tend to know when they are young just as gay people do.
Where someone's gender does not match their birth biological sex.
I'd guess the problem is where political views flow over into such a report. I haven't read it so I can't critique the report, but such reports in areas like this are very prone to cherry picking medical evidence that suits a particular view. Or at least get included to pander to a particular political view at least a little bit.
Speaking from experience - I have an 18 year old nephew who was born a girl. At around 8 he was saying that he felt trapped in a girls body. He was a miserable girl. He went on a local radio station to tell his story and they wanted to make a documentary about him, filming his life going to school etc. we said no because of the pressure. At school he had to go and get the key for the disabled toilets every time he needed the loo.
I can’t remember the age he started his medication, I think he had to turn 16 first but he had several years of support groups and 1 to 1 sessions with doctors first. It wasn’t handed out like “sweeties”. Perhaps people should go off and research it first before making those ignorant claims.
he is now an extremely happy, confident young man with a girlfriend and is a singer in a band.
oh and just by the way, he’s had no surgery.
what’s tough for parents is when you feel like you’ve lost a daughter that you’ve raised for x amount of time then suddenly gain a son instead who seems to have changed personality as well. Parents need more support that way.
I can’t remember the age he started his medication, I think he had to turn 16 first but he had several years of support groups and 1 to 1 sessions with doctors first. It wasn’t handed out like “sweeties”. Perhaps people should go off and research it first before making those ignorant claims.
he is now an extremely happy, confident young man with a girlfriend and is a singer in a band.
oh and just by the way, he’s had no surgery.
what’s tough for parents is when you feel like you’ve lost a daughter that you’ve raised for x amount of time then suddenly gain a son instead who seems to have changed personality as well. Parents need more support that way.
It's 3 am here, haven't read the report, cant force myself to sleep, so let's argue here in an incoherent way.
That frosty post referencing florida and you referencing covid drew some dots. florida's anti-vaccine policies. britain's early insane policy. both ratified by experts.
...
To the report itself. very clearly saw them reject 100/102 studies or something like that. for not having controls/blindedness. Blindedness hard to achieve with hormones in teenagers though. patients will notice presence or absence of facial hair or breasts. a bit of rote mechanical oversight, or bias, in expecting that. Makes massive difference to report outcome.
Lack of controls valid concern. but "solution" out of whack. clampdown on therapy drastic, especially for treatment that has been done for decades. Vast majority of studies including meta-analyses give many positive/neutral outcomes for teenage hormone intervention. Have posted them here before. Got reply from hobbers about lack of controls then too i think. Had looked it up at that time but hadn't replied.
...
Your post "newspapers focus on inflammatory", they ignore nuance of report, etc.
But it is clear what the implications are. Your health minister said sorry for believing that trans women are women the moment report came out. statement worth a thousand pages of nuanced report, because it clarifies what the direction of change is.
...
Also this is a 100% total ban for all trans women in sports since by definition hormone intervention too late.
A post that could have been made, word for word, about any number of reports and recommendations produced during covid. Yet, back then, you wouldn’t have dreamed of accusing the physicians/scientists behind them of pandering to a political agenda.
It's also completely moronic to be in favour of banning or greatly restricting access to gender affirming care for minors to "protect kids", because doing so will harm waaaay more kids.
Halftrack from redcafe says "completely moronic" yet legitimate experts, who have studied all the available data, seem to think differently. Who to believe...
In mammalian physiology, there are only 2 sexes (barring any genetic or in utero abnormalities, which are an exception). Citing all other species as an example of gay or gender fluid behaviours is disingenuous in this type of discussion as we're not discussing amoeba, bacterium or what have you. Although, I feel like we've had this conversation before.
There are studies and reports I am going to believe not having read them, and studies and reports I am not going to believe not having read them.
The post truth reality of the internet world.
The post truth reality of the internet world.
There's lots of bad studies out there though who don't adhere to best practices for research and statistical calculations. I mean that in general, not necessarily on this subject.
It's hard for a layman to know what to believe. But there seems to be evidence that right-wingers are making it out to be worse than it is. However, then the question is: why are multiple countries changing their policy on this? Are they all wrong?
Absolutely. And a big part of the work around writing a review like this Cass report is systematically weeding out the bad research from the good. That and identifying gaps in the evidence base where there just isn’t any good research at all. Which seems to have been one of the main criticisms coming out of this report, interventions made in the absence of good evidence to support them.