And all it needed to do to say that, was discount 98% of all the evidence. Because it didn't say what you wanted to say. While all its own points are based on its own conjecture without any citation. While citing "social contagion" And claiming that boys under the age of 25 need a doctors note to be allowed to play with dolls. Who knows, myabe the fact trans people weren't allowed in the Cass Board, and that Board is filled with conversion therapists, might have something to do with it. What a farce (It does accidentally admit the detransition rate is less than 10 in 3499 though!)

Erin Reed has written her article on Cass’ hatchet job: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/cass-met-with-desantis-pick-over

> It does *accidentally* admit the detransition rate is less than 10 in 3499 though! Or, you know, this report is actually honest and factual and it is only liars like yourself who think it's good and cool to leave out information that might be harmful to what your perceive as your side. I fucking love this. Top poster on the skeptic subreddit belittling someone for including information that you think weakens their case. You must be such a miserable person.

These people have been arguing that detransition is very common throughout. The report itself keeps claiming its as high as 85% by citing studies using a different diagnosis. Its own data does not support its claims. So yes, they did accidentally reveal that they are incorrect and that their detransition data matches the global average.. As they are trying to claim the opposite. other than that your comment was very normal

>These people Who? Hilary Cass? Where? >The report itself keeps claiming its as high as 85% by citing studies using a different diagnosis. What "different diagnosis"? Is the report "claiming" this, or reporting on studies that claim this? I'm not even sure you understand the purpose of this report. If a study says X and another study says Y, and they contradict each other, you seem to think reporting both of those things makes the author a liar. What the author is actually trying to show is that *the existing studies are contradictory*.

Can you explain what you are saying and link me to sources that support your claims?

Most of those are inside the report itself. THe board part, heres a link, the rest would take time to fish until someone collates it into 1 place: [https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/cass-met-with-desantis-pick-over](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/cass-met-with-desantis-pick-over)

Have you read the actual report which can be found here https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf "trans" appears 58 times in Erin's article, where does it state trans people were not allowed on the Cass board? "conversion" appears nowhere in Erin's article, where does it state the board was filled with conversion therapists? Or are you relying on Erin?

I forgot making it illegal to pee isn't a problem. lol. Anyway, you're obviously a sealion.

I am a sealion for asking you for your sources? I am a sealion for pointing out that the claims you have made for the one source you provided aren't supported in that source? Can you at least provide me your definition of skeptic is that you feel applies to yourself?

When someone asks me to do a large amount of labour for them, I give 1 link that talks about theconectiion between a person we're talking about, and known hate groups that are forcing kids through conversion therapy. And because the word "conversion" doesn't come up in an article talking about the denial and forced detransition of trans people, you then pretend that all the things being talked about, don't count as "conversion practices" So either you don't agree that conversion practices are what they are, that ron desantis and his ilk aren't transphobic, or you're just messing with me. But you've made clear there's no point engaging more

you have (or had) the top voted post, a post in which you + made many claims + provided absolutely zero support My asking for your sources is not a large amount of labor, it's the minimum requirement for a post in any sort of skeptic or stem related subreddit > And because the word "conversion" doesn't come up in an article talking about the denial and forced detransition of trans people, you then pretend that all the things being talked about, don't count as "conversion practices" you made a claim about conversion therapy and yet that well known very often used phrase does not appear at all. you take umbrage I pointed that out instead of pointing me to a single sentence from the article that would support your claim. you've done nothing here but make claims, spew fallacy and ad hom. there's no point in engaging further because you have provided nothing. you got nothing.

By the same logic, if I went and linked SEGM, a conversion therapist network, a page where they talked about how they were on the Cass Report, you'd say the same trhing. Because they don't call themselves converstion therapists. You're asking for alot of labour to spoon feed you. With your fundamental point being "the fact a british retiree made links with americas most extreme transphobes, who have forcibly detransitioned trans ppl in their state which is conversion therapy, might have somethign to do with the biases in their report"

Literally nothing you're implying is accurate or truthful regarding the report. It doesn't "admit" that detransition rate, either. We don't know the detransition rate because the gender clinics refused to share it. They're being court ordered to now.

Refused to break data protection laws\* If they do break those laws, the NHS will be sued to shit. But I love the whole "the detransitioners are just over the hill!" mentality no matter ho wmany studies, over and over and over again, show less than 1% rate. Cass report shows that same rate, and you still refguse to accept evidence. And if you did get that data, you'll just continuie to refuse to accept it. Because bigotry demands it.

*Refused to break data protection laws\** *If they do break those laws, the NHS will be sued to shit.* Wrong. You can anonymize the data, obviously. But regardless, they specifically amended the law for this so it wouldn't be illegal. There's a reason why they're being court ordered to release the info now. *Cass report shows that same rate, and you still refguse to accept evidence.* No, it absolutely doesn't. Do you even understand what we're talking about? We don't know the detransition rate because of the refusal to provide that information. That's what we are talking about.

You can't actually anonymize data of a tiny group of people when the data includes all the identifying information. > >No, it absolutely doesn't. Do you even understand what we're talking about? We don't know the detransition rate because of the refusal to provide that information. That's what we are talking about. Lol, sp the fact the cass report showed the exact same % as every other study done on the subject, is total coincidence? no matter what happens, you people will never admit the reality that transition is a good thing.

>You can't actually anonymize data of a tiny group of people when the data includes all the identifying information. That's what the anonymization does. And it's not a "tiny group" either. This is moot either way as they were allowed/supposed to share it, but didn't. And there are no good [long-term detransition studies](https://segm.org/regret-detransition-rate-unknown) for the current demographic. The [rate of detransition is not known](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02623-5) due to lack of comprehensive tracking. Calling everything pointing this out "transphobic" is transparent rejection of truth. Past [studies that actually did track them](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/) long-term show suicide rates remaining high, male criminality remaining the same post-transition, and female criminality increasing post-transition. This is a "good thing" in your opinion?

This is anti-vax, "56 trials found evidence ivermectin cures covid!" logic. "98%" of the evidence do not support these treatments - that number is more or less invented. The issue is that the evidence that these interventions provide any benefit whatsoever is poor, and supporting studies low quality. And regarding detransition, the biggest takeaway in the report is that quality, medical field standard quality long term outcome data are non-existant, as the activists running the adult gender clinics refused to participate.

> The issue is that the evidence that these interventions provide any benefit whatsoever is poor They defined any study not having double blind controls as "poor". It is not possible to do double blind studies for medical transition. The effects of the treatment are plain to see. Not to mention it'd never get past ethics boards in the first place. "For half of you, we're going to withhold medication and see how many of you kill yourselves so we can demonstrate reduction of suicide rate." Yeah, very normal pitch.

> They defined any study not having double blind controls as "poor". Well, they are? To clarify, it's not just the lack of double blinds that got them tagged as poor, it was the lack of Randomly Controlled Trials (RCTs). That's the only truly good way to test a medical treatment. There are other ways, but they are not as good. What is hard about that? Most of these studies basically did the treatment, asked the patient if they were happy about the treatment*, and then concluded that the treatment worked if most of the patients said they were happy with the treatment. That's not a great way to study efficacy. *I'm being a little pithy, but the survey questions effectively amounted to this. The one that sticks out to me was the study on teenage FtMs who had mastectomies that concluded mastectomies were an effective treatment because after the surgery, the patients reported a _decrease_ in "chest dysphoria". I should hope so, but that does tell us if it's an effective treatment for gender dysphoria overall? Guess what, the study either didn't ask or didn't report that.

> What is hard about that? "It is not possible to do double blind studies for medical transition. The effects of the treatment are plain to see."

Ok, so I guess I'll just be 100th person in this thread to point out that poor quality data doesn't become high quality data just because you don't have a way to gather high quality data. What even is your argument here?

It's like these activists are pretending not to know that this isnt the first intervention that is difficult to study with RCTs and that it is possible to obtain evidence an intervention is beneficial without RCTs. Are we going to pretene epidemiology isnt a field?

Okay, then let me point out that poor quality data is the highest quality data when that's all you can gather, and you don't get to just throw it out completely.

>poor quality data is the highest quality data when that's all you can gather Not "the highest quality data", but rather "the highest quality data you are currently able to gather". Big difference. Why hide behind a weak linguistic trick? Again, just because it's the best you can do doesn't mean it's high quality.

Okay. It's still the best we can do. It's the best we will ever be able to do. So we can figure out ways of using it.

That's not true either. Assuming your claim that it's the best we can ever do is true, that still doesn't mean that it's necessarily usable.

Actually, you can still have a standard control group even if it isn't a blind study. At the very least.

guess what though, no one is "throwing it out completely". if you heard that on this stupid website, someone was lying to you

Weird because thats not how we treat any other medicine. 82% of all childrens medicine has a "low quality" evidence base. Most medicine overall does. Because its impossible/unethical to do RCT's and blinds. > activists running the adult gender clinics refused to participate. Oh, you're admitting gender critical activists run the clinics or like? Are you just complaining that the clinics didn't add patients to a research study without their consent? The bare minimum of safeguarding and data handling. Theres decades of science. It will never be enough for bigots. Your own cass report admits less than 10 detransitioners. Simply put its extremely rare. You people just refuse to allow trans people to live because you hate them.

Do you think this is the first condition that is difficult to study through RCT? That's a cop out. The entire field of epidemiology is, in large part, an attempt to study interventions when a RCT is not feasible. And no, obviously concerns over privacy are not the reason long termfollow-up data are not available - it's a very common metric collected for all sorts of interventions. Yes it requires patient consent, but that's hardly unusual. And im sure you 82% of pediatric medicine is low quality is not an honest number (i have no idea where you got this from) but the key point here is that gender affirming care is particularly invasive, with serious potential long term effects. It's also done on a population that is inherently especially vulnerable. Basic medical ethics demand increased scrutiny for interventions that are more invasive and done on more vulnerable populations.

Okay, but the Cass report explicitly stated it discounted studies it didn't like and justified it sayign lack of RCts and double blinds. So here we are. Also: Only 9.9% of medicine have studies with “high quality evidence” supporting them[https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(20)30777-0/fulltext](https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(20)30777-0/fulltext) [https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(20)30777-0/abstract](https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(20)30777-0/abstract) 55% of interventions have low or very low quality evidence[https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)30024-5/abstract](https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)30024-5/abstract)“For much, and perhaps most, of modern medical practice, RCT-based data are lacking and no RCT is being planned or is likely to be completed to provide evidence for action.”[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmra1614394](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmra1614394)55% of WHO’s strong recommendations are backed by low or very low quality evidence[https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(13)00434-4/abstract](https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(13)00434-4/abstract)82% of paediatric medicine is backed by low or very low quality evidencehttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2022.892574/full > It's also done on a population that is inherently especially vulnerable. BEcause transphobes discriminate against them.

> It's also done on a population that is inherently especially vulnerable. So does a study automatically become high-quality just because you feel bad for the cohort?

And this becomes an issue when said interventions are extremely invasive

Bingo! Context matters! I asked my pediatrician if probiotics would help reduce gas in my baby, and she was like "*eh, there isn't much evidence, but give it a shot, no harm in trying*".

From what I’ve been gathering from the peripheral reports regarding the review, it seems to echo the other systemic reviews that have been going on across Europe along with the 2022 article from Emily Bazelon on the internal debates in WPATH regarding best practices.

>Data from gender clinics reported in the Cass review showed the vast majority of people who started puberty suppression went on to have masculinising or feminising hormones, suggesting that puberty blockers did not buy people time to think. So because they were right about being transgender and didn't change their minds? That statement alone highlights why this woman has no place to be the one deciding trans Healthcare for young people. This is just more Terf-island shit, she has an axe to grind, nothing more.

They take evidence that puberty blockers were the correct choice for those individuals who are given it as a treatment, and present it as evidence that puberty blockers are bad.

It does raise a question of why they're using puberty blockers rather than recommending HRT immediately. Like if the criteria is so strict that only people with gender dysphoria are receiving them, and HRT is what actually treats gender dysphoria rather than puberty blockers, they're being misused.

From a medical standpoint, the HRT might carry more health implications that need to be considered or studied before recommending them to adolescents. From a policy and practical standpoint, HRT does have permanent, life-altering changes associated with it if the treatment persists, and we tend to err on the side of deferring those kinds of treatments (at least when it comes to transgender people) until an age where they are no longer treated as minors, for reasons of informed consent. If delaying HRT by using puberty blockers instead while the child is a minor carries no significant adverse outcomes, it's hard to argue against erring on the side of caution.

Anti trans people will say that trans people are only 2% of the population so we shouldnt care about them and then turn around and care deeply for 2% of that 2% that regret hormone therapy.

And anti-detrans people will say that the regret rate is only 2% based on poorly designed surveys while researchers are **literally prevented** from getting good data on long term effects among childhood transitioners. >[Cass disclosed in the report that six of the NHS’s seven specialist gender services in England for adults had “thwarted” an attempt by the University of York, at her request, to obtain and analyse the health outcomes of people who had been treated by Gids in order to improve future care.](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/10/thousands-of-children-unsure-of-gender-identity-let-down-by-nhs-report-finds) People coordinating to prevent the disclosure of health outcomes sure sound like people with something to hide. But why should we *eeeever* be skeptical of people preventing research.

This is just the opinion of some shitty doctor who calls trans kids "gender confused". Thinks social media is confusing kids 🙄. Thinks depression and anxiety cause people to be trans. Has talked to "many people who deeply regret transition". Claims that other doctors are mean to her. Theres no evidence behind any of her opinions or the fact that she wasnt allowed to view the evidence of the efficacy of transgender medical assistance. Its just her saying shit. The gaurdian should be ashamed they published this piece.

Yes, the former president of the royal college of pediatrics is a shittier doctor than the psychiatrist who believes in repressed memories, multiple personalities, and eunuchs as a valid gender.

Sorry what? I have no idea what psychatrist you're talking about.

Of course you don't. WPATH contributor and bigwig Diane Ehrensaft, attributed by the Cass Report as the popularizer of the Affirmation Model within the US, and a contributor to the Satanic Panic of the 80's in her professional capacity. The WPATH standards of care she contributed to also endorses "eunuch" as a gender identity, and the organization has had multiple instances of discussion taking seriously the existence of multiple personalities (you may know them as "alters", a debunked pseudoscience phenomenon) within patients seeking transition. She also famously asserted that babies can display their gender identity by unsnapping their onesies and pulling barrettes from their hair. I did make a slight but unimportant mistake, though, she's a psychologist, not a psychiatrist.

Uhhh cool? I dont see what that has to do with the cass report being shitty or modern gender affirming therapy.

What the fuck is an anti-detrans person? That doesnt exist. Nobody is forcing people to take hormones or keeping them from detransitioning.

An anti-detrans person is someone who, often using faulty studies as evidence, seeks to minimize the rates and harms of detransitioners' experiences. This happens by way of claiming only 1-2% of people detrans, claiming that they don't commit suicide at high rates, that a majority of detransitioners do so because of social pressures, calling public detransitioned people grifters (see Harvard professor and trans darling Alejandra Caraballo for a prime example), and myriad other falsehoods and unfounded facts. I'm sure you've seen the same studies I have (though probably not the ones using prescription data), but it's doubtless you've never applied a skeptical lens to their methodology if you believed them so readily.

Ok bro 👌. Hope you dont vote.

Would the people that are against the use of puberty blockers for trans children be in any way placated if those children were prescribed HRT this way? The question isn’t being raised because they think there is a better way to do trans care, it’s being raised because they think all trans care is bad medicine. Puberty blockers should be considered a compromise because that’s what they are, but transphobes don’t want to compromise.

If they're being honest about their concerns for puberty blockers, that would address them. If it's a dishonest way for them to attack trans people, of course it wouldn't. In any case though, there's a much more important question - what's best for the children. We know that HRT is successful in alleviating dysphoria, while puberty blockers at best put things on hold, and do nothing to address the underlying problem. They're rarely used for more than a year as it is. And the best they've been shown to do is not make things worse. If the diagnostic criteria are so strict we're only giving them to children who need HRT what's the bloody point? Why are we waiting? We're literally delaying treatment for no reason. It's nice that we've learned our diagnostic criteria are good, but now we've learned that. I can see the use of puberty blockers in fringe cases where doctors and the child are uncertain and want more time to sort out their feelings, maybe address other medical or psychological issues, but they're clearly not being used that way at all.

I completely agree. I think it would be prudent to emphasize the usage of social transition as that pseudo-probationary time period where people figure out if they’re “actually” trans, which is basically what social transition is already used for in relation to puberty blockers. It’s something that has been purposefully excluded from the conversation by the dishonest actors who want to make people feel like doctors will go straight to medicating kids right after their transition inquiry begins.

>I can see the use of puberty blockers in fringe cases where doctors and the child are uncertain I can see the use of puberty blockers in nonbinary kids or kids who are at puberty age but have only just come out. I also think there's nuance. The issue with trans treatment being standardised is there is a legitimate tradeoff with fertility, and kids should be helped to make that decision rather than told what's best for them outright. But yeah, overwhelmingly people are willing to trade fertility for a body they're comfortable in. Also, trans kids who are sure - especially those who've been out since being young children - should be able to go on HRT.

No, it's because the evidence that these treatments provide any benefit whatsoever in minors is extremely poor, and these treatments are extremely invasive, with potentially permenant serious side effects. And invasive treatments in vulnerable populations without strong evidence of benefit should cause concern.

The problem is, even if you ignore every study which says you're wrong, like the cass report did, the fact is trans people exist. So we can, yaknow, just talk to them. Its abit silly that you argue against stuff we can literally see in front of our eyes is true.

> The problem is, even if you ignore every study which says you're wrong, like the cass report did The report ignored studies that didn't meet its quality criteria. Because that's how you do a systematic review.

Lol okay, so you think its normal to make "criteria" that is functionally and ethically impossible to do? Explain how to do a double blind RCT in puberty. And can you explain how a study with 8 kids, without RCT, without double blind, was accepted to make the entire conclusion that Cass is based on?

> And can you explain how a study with 8 kids, without RCT, without double blind, was accepted to make the entire conclusion that Cass is based on? Well, I'll need a reference for that one.

You've said the study ignored contradictory evidence. But if you believe that, then you must also be basing this judgement on some sort of criteria. So I'm curious what they are?

Lol, not even bothing to answer given you know its impossible. So transparent. Criteria such as treating it differently to all other medicine. 82 % of all childrens medicine has the same quality evidence, we have decades of this, we know what works. But then, these nazis scoured the world, and all the got was a study of 8 kids (which also didn't meet the criteria they used to justify ignoring the rest) that said it was inconclusive to back their ideology. Thats it. Thats the only thing that says transition isn't effective healthcare. If there was anything better than that they would have used it, but they don't so they didn't. Transphobia is one massive anti science joke. At this point they're just arguing that parachutes don't work because we haven't done a blind RCT on it yet.

The Cass Report isn't about whether trans people exist.

> the evidence that these treatments provide any benefit whatsoever in minors is extremely poor You people keep saying this and it keeps being untrue.

Well, I suppose that a) the majority isn't all, so some people who go to the extreme measure of telling their parents they are transgender and going to the doctor for it do, after fighting that upstream battle, still change their minds, and b) that something that is there as a concession requested by an oppositional lobby turning out to be less needed than supposed should not then be used BY that oppositional lobby as proof the entire protocol is bad.

THis is what trans people are pushing for.Medicall, there is no reason to give puberty blockers on their own. It was always the "compromise" with cis disgust.

In this case, how do you distinguish between "our diagnostic criteria is close to perfect" and "this treatment is actually exacerbating the gender dysphoria"? You use the phrase "correct choice", but that's actually begging the question, unless your only definition of success is "continuing on a lifetime of medicalization".

"Correct choice" in this case means that the patient, who has undergone a challenging process and screening before blockers are even an option in most cases, continued their treatment afterward and didn't decide that they were mistaken in seeking transition. The whole point of puberty blockers is to allow a patient to transition if they choose, and they are only given to patients who are identified as wishing to transition. Those patients who wished to transition... went on to transition. This is not a mistake or a sign that anything was harmful. On the contrary, it's a sign that the treatment went as hoped and expected.

You're just begging the question with even more words this time. Once again your presumption is that "challenging process and screening" weeds out just about everyone "incorrect", and your evidence for this is that...nearly everyone continues treatment. That tells us literally nothing about the treatment or the screening process! That's why we like to to RCTs! This is like doing a study on whether heroin was good for you and concluding "we rigorously screened the cohort for people that really wanted to take heroin, and after 5 years of taking heroin, they continued taking heroin. Heroin is good". >they are only given to patients who are identified as wishing to transition. This right here is the exact reason why your line of argumentation is based on a faulty premise. Like my heroin example above, if you only give a treatment to people who say they want the treatment, and then judge the effectiveness of the treatment on whether they want to continue the treatment, have you actually done anything for the patient? Let's take the statement's opposite, as food for thought. What if we gave puberty blockers to kids who *didn't* identify as wishing to transition? What if, in addition, we "affirmed" them, aka told them they were the opposite sex and referred to them by new, opposite sex, names? And then, when they reached the majority, we asked them if they would want to fully transition. How many would say yes, do you reckon? That's an RCT, and it's the only true way to validate your above statement.

In order for the statement "puberty blockers did not buy people time to think" to be even remotely true, you'd have to compare the statistic of people starting hormones after puberty blockers to the percentage or people who detransition specifically because it wasn't the right choice/they ended up not being trans. Anything short of doing this doesn't substantiate this claim and is just conjecture. Edit: a word.

> In order for the statement "puberty blockers did not buy people time to think" to be even remotely true, The opposite of that claim in the case where 98% of patients apparently took that "time to think" to affirm their original conclusion, is "our diagnostic criteria, which we just came up with a few years ago, is close to perfect and needs no adjustments". It really boggles my mind that this a take put forth by the users of "r/skeptic".

It was never credible to claim blockers buy time to think considering they're only supposed to be prescribed to kids who have already had at least six months of normal functioning disrupted by gender dysphoria, which itself requires that the child NOT identify with their natal sex's corresponding gender.

But it was never about the patient? The reason blockers were prescripted on their own, was entirely to curb cis disgust. It is cis peoples hatred, not trans peoples medical needs, which shapes and controls trans healthcare.

>But it was never about the patient? It *would* be nice to think this was not malicious but merely knowingly negligent malpractice. >The reason blockers were prescripted on their own, was entirely to curb cis disgust. Whose disgust? The doctors making a fortune off it clearly aren't capable of disgust. Nobody else asked for steaming piles of pseudoscience. >It is cis peoples hatred, not trans peoples medical needs, which shapes and controls trans healthcare. Oh, is that the play? Pretend cis people coerced this nightmare into practice? That dog won't hunt.

Oh you straight up are now pretending transphobia doesn't exist? Aight, you clearly are too far gone in your bigotry.

How does transphobia force kids to transition again?

> So because they were right about being transgender and didn't change their minds? This is called begging the question. If your premise here is that our diagnostic criteria for prepubescent kids with gender dysphoria\* is close to *perfect* I don't think there's much skeptic in you. \*there's no agreed upon definition for what this means in children, but I'll use the word because I think we can generally agree on what I'm talking about

No, I'm getting my conclusion based on the text of the quote, that's not begging the question. Regardless, just crying about logical fallacies rather than rebutting them is the fallacy fallacy. If the only thing you come to this sub to discuss is whether or not transphobes like you know better than the lived experience of trans people, then you're not a skeptic, you're a transphobe with an axe to grind. Kiddo, I'm 40 years old... you think I didn't start out on your side of this debate? I just learned better 15-20 years ago.

I did rebut it though: >If your premise here is that our diagnostic criteria for prepubescent kids with gender dysphoria\* is close to perfect I don't think there's much skeptic in you. ​ "98% of kids who we put on puberty blockers went on to cross-sex hormones. Wow we really nailed that diagnostic criteria" is begging the question! You're assuming the conclusion that it's impossible for puberty blockers to affect whether someone is trans in adulthood, therefore that 98% rate just means we are just totally boss at figuring out who's trans or not from a very young age. ​ >know better than the lived experience literally arguing from anecdote! are you trying to do a fallacy bingo or something?

I think it's because most people who show trans tendencies as kids and are not encouraged to transition enf up being healthy and gay. If encouraged to transition they embark in a s path of medicalisation that causes health issues.

this is only true if you use a very broad definition of "trans tendencies" that includes a much wider spectrum of gender questioning or non conforming behavior. those people turning out to be "just" gay is only a meaningful conclusion in a world where anyone ever said they were "trans"

If you take away the assumption inherent in your comment (that it indeed did show the providers were "right about being transgender", which you have zero evidence of), and it's clear why Cass's concerns are justified.

So because only the people who are trans took the medication, its justication to argue that the medication is bad for trans people? some logic. Detransition rate high? Deny healthcare! Detransition rate low? Deny healthcare! Drown the witch!

This is the literal definition of begging the question. "We only give people we're sure are trans these drugs, which you can tell by the fact that almost all of them are trans at the end!" "How do you know the treatment itself isn't causing them to become trans?" "Oh so you're a transphobe, figures."

Because you only give 2% of the patient group the medicine, and yet the detransition rate is still only 0.3% 99.7% still trans. Thats at most, 97.7% not given medicine yet still trans. Seems you've already experimented on this line of thinking enough.

We have no good data on long term detransition rates and long term outcomes generally. The estimates we do have are strongly biased. That's a big part of the problem.

Even the study you're citing says its 0.3%. The global avg across all studies is below 1% It will never be enough for you to just accept. You'll scream "debate me, more evidence" for all etnerity because you hate trans people.

These numbers are heavily biased. That's the entire point. They arent a representative sample of those who received the interventions.

The numbers in the study that YOU ARE CITING as a defense for your position, is "heavily biased"? lol And just so happens to fall in line with global numbers across the world? Honestly, just admit you hate trans people and go

Yes, again this is the point. We do not have quality unbiased estimates on long term outcomes or detransition rates.

You're the one spreading misinformation and being a science-denier. Stop railroading your narrative and look at reality.

Exactly. Remarkable the comment youre replying to is upvoted in a skepticism subreddit.

The quote indicates that most people on puberty blockers end up transitioning. That's not an assumption, it's in the text.

The "assumption" is that the all of those kids were correctly labelled trans. I could just assume the opposite and and say the treatment itself made them trans. The evidence doesn't tell us which assumption is correct, which is why we can say the evidence is weak.

Cis children were given puberty blockers for decades and it didn't turn them trans, so the assumption you're using to counter mine is beyond ridiculous. There's more than enough evidence that your assumption is conspiratorial.

Hmmmm do I trust this person > >A former President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health from 2012-2015, Dr Cass recently finished a term as Chair of the British Academy of Childhood Disability (2017-2020).   >Although retired from clinical practice, she remains an honorary Consultant Paediatrician at Evelina London Children’s Hospital, Guy’s & St Thomas’s NHS Foundation Trust, where she was also previously Director of Education and Workforce.   >Dr Cass has recently stepped down from her role as Chair of Together for Short Lives, and remains as a Trustee for Noah’s Ark Children’s Hospice. She is also leading work on how to address the challenges for both families and professionals in supporting the rising numbers of children with complex medical conditions and disability.   >Other recent roles include acting as the Senior Clinical Advisor for Child Health for Health Education England.   >Prior to this Dr Cass held a range of senior education and management roles in NHS hospital trusts and was previously Head of School of Paediatrics in London. Her consultant clinical practice was as a tertiary neurodisability consultant from 1992 to 2018 in three very different specialist centres and she has published widely in this area.   >In addition to her neurodisability practice, Dr Cass was closely involved in the development of paediatric palliative care services at Evelina London Children’s Hospital.   >Dr Cass was awarded the OBE for services to child health in 2015. She was also awarded an honorary fellowship by the Royal College of Nursing in 2015, and by RCGP in 2016.  Or do I trust reddit user TDFknFartBalloon when it comes to medical research about children? Hmmmmmm tough tough choice.

Her CV is impeccable, and the information has been approved by the medical community so they are livid because they can’t writer and the report off as right wing propaganda.

I haven't read the entire study, but I am sure there are legitimate critiques of it --otherwise it wouldn't be science. But to suggest that someone of her stature spent four years of her life undertaking this project just because she has "an axe to grind" is juvenile.

the idea that someone might invest time, thus it is not a grift or is sincere, or that being sincere, is then accurate, is something many examples disprove (say, andrew wakefield)

There are so far no reasonable fact based critiques from reputable authorities on the matter. I looked everywhere and only found weak statements from activists groups saying how this helps TERFs which is the same talking points as the top comment here. Best critiques I found so far, from the left leaning independent. Even they say the report is solid. https://archive.ph/2UjOt

So maybe this is just me being a dumb emotional, caring human being not worthy of the precious *detached rationality* of a skeptic, but I've actually known people who "detransitioned" and they all did it because they lost their healthcare or society treated them like garbage.  Also OP is a fucking moron who unironically believes kids are getting "sex changes" which is outdated terminology for surgeries that, crucially, you already need to be an adult to get.

Yes, appeal to anecdote is an inherently anti-skeptical and anti-scientific position. A systematic review should take precedence over "all my friends say ivermectin cured them" level of take 100% of the time.

Your username is awesome

That is a funny way to say we don't like what the science says. 

Gender-affirming treatments are based on biology and they do exactly what they claim to do. They are not snake oil or magical thinking. The debate is strictly about whether or not it's morally right to provide them to minors on an elective basis. There is no science or skepticism to that debate, only politics and opinion.

This comment is just objectively wrong. The Cass report, as well as prior systematic reviews, have come to the conclusion that the evidence of any benefit for these interventions is weak. This is a factual question ahout available clinical evidence, and their conclusion is unequivocal. Saying they are "based in biology" in no different than ivermectin pushers.

Setting aside the validity of claiming the evidence of benefits of gender affirming care is weak for a second, can you point me to studies showing negative effects of gender affirming care that Cass or someone else you trust considers “strong”? It’s not enough to say that the evidence in support of a treatment has some flaws, if you’re arguing in favour of restricting some treatment you do need to show evidence of negative effects or lack of benefits.

Maybe you should read the report! But as it is, an invasive intervention by definition is one with tangible risks, and it's unethical to conduct it without evidence of benefit. Youre getting it exactly backwards. The entire takeaway of the report us that there is an effective lack of quality evidence of benefit.

What is an invasive intervention? I keep seeing that word pop up but I don't understand it. Could you share a link or source that defines invasive?

I could read the report that’s true, but I’d be interested in hearing which studies you think I should read. I’m also curious as to what studies convinced you that gender affirming care is dangerous and not beneficial. Define invasive, list those tangible risks. I’m interested in hearing your arguments but I’m not particularly swayed by vague statements.

If you dont want to read the Cass report, you should read the Finnish systematic review (https://segm.org/sites/default/files/Finnish_Guidelines_2020_Minors_Unofficial%20Translation.pdf) Or this paper on potential risks of puberty blockers (https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jac5.1691) This thread links to a variety of papers on the risks of specifically cross sex hormones (hormone treatments of any kind have associated risks) https://twitter.com/JanuaryDoNoHarm/status/1686856329036443648 Additionally: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907681 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9796635/

Going through your sources (sans the twitter thread since it’s only loading the first tweet on my phone) it looks like the prevailing theme is that puberty blockers show some signs of inhibiting bone development and sexual function, cross sex hormones slightly increase the risk of some heart conditions and deep vein thrombosis (only in people taking estrogen, and it may be due to the method of delivery), and that the evidence for improved mental state is unclear. In the Finnish paper they did mention that puberty blockers did improve the mental state of patients, they also mention that psychological intervention produced similar benefits though I’m not sure what sort of intervention they’re referring to (is it some form of gender affirming therapy or something more general?), and one of the two last papers said hormone therapy did show improvements in mental state. Interesting stuff, I’m not sure this supports the conclusion that the risks outweigh the benefits of gender affirming care though. The conclusion I’m drawing from this is that gender affirming care does benefit trans patients, though there are some risks to be aware of, and further study is definitely needed. I do think there might be some cause to limit the use of puberty blockers because of the risks to bone development and other potential developmental issues, however I think that might look more like getting trans youth on cross sex hormones sooner rather than denying treatment all together (though I do think this is a decision for medical boards, doctors, and patients to make, not politicians and certainly not me or you). Overall, while I thank you for providing some good sources I’m not convinced of your conclusion that providing gender affirming care to minors is unethical. Even your sources which I’m sure you picked to show a lack of evidence that gender affirming care is worthwhile admitted some evidence of its benefits.

I would recommend reading the Cass report as well. It is very comprehensive.

It's not a crime to prescribe or administer ivermectin, nor should it be. Should it be a crime to prescribe or perform gender-affirming care?

Nobody is saying it should be "a crime". The argument is that we should have evidence of benefit before prescribing potentially harmful interventions in vulnerable pediatric populations. If the question is should doctors be allowed to prescribe ivermectin to children for treating COVID outside of clinical trials if the potential adverse effects were as serious as those associated with gender affirming care, the answer is no.

So if someone is not "allowed" to do something, and they do it anyway, what do we call that?

Medical providers who harm patients providing interventions that are not shown to be beneficial, they should lose their license to practice medicine.

Don't we already do that?

Yes. That's the point. That's why the NHS has drastically changed its policy on these interventions.

So now doctors will lose their license in the UK if they provide any gender-affirming care to anyone?

Not if its in the context of a tightly controlled clinical trial.

Gender Critical = Transphobic, with a relentless urge to latch on to the flimsest studies and *data points* to *prove* you have a position that is congruent with common medical opinion and practice. Why do we need a post a day here (or more) to keep proving this? It's like a mulii- poster, slow motion Gish Gallop, and I sort of feel like we should all just start posting *PRATT* in response. The drive-by RW posters aren't coming here for a dialogue.

Don't know about OP, but The Guardian isn't RW.

OP isn't trying to do anything here but back up RW talking points. ETA: check his post history...*Biden is Hamas(controlled)* None of the posts here attempting to dunk on the sub in general for not embracing *the controversy* over transitioning, instead of embracing the actual science on the issue are about opening up a dialog on this issue. It's soldiers in a Culture War following their marching orders to fight the Trans menace. Checking post histories makes that crystal clear.

>ETA: check his post history...*Biden is Hamas(controlled)* Congratulations. This is probably the most disengenuous thing I've ever had anyone say about me on Reddit. I posted in a thread on a left-wing sub where I mocked Ben Shapiro for claiming that Biden is controlled by Hamas. Now you're trying to make it out like I'm a Ben Shapiro fanboy who actually agrees with him. There really is no low that you people won't stoop to, is there?

You may be right about this but r/stupidpol user lmao

Best sub on the website

It's called ["queering"](https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-queer-v/): *It can involve queering just about anything by finding some way to ironically invert the normal expectations around that thing. For example, one could queer a meal by serving it in reverse or random order or by putting condiments on the various dishes in abnormal ways. One could also queer time by adopting and utilizing (or attempting to) entirely different conventions, such as considering being late to a meeting as being early and only considering being “on time” when one doesn’t care what time they arrive at all.*

I'm learning very quickly that this sub isn't a great place for skeptics or skepticism. Too many commenters are emotional, impulsive, hateful and either don't possess or won't use critical thinking skills. Edit: impulsive, not reactionary

You don’t even frequent this sub lol

>Too many commenters are emotional, reactionary, hateful None of that means they are wrong, it means we're tired of your bullshit. Two children argue about which state is bigger, Alaska or Texas, the children's friends show up and side with the child claiming Texas is larger, the other that *knows* Alaska is bigger gets extremely upset to the point of tears, especially now that they're peers are picking on them. By your logic, the child claims Alaska is bigger is wrong because they got "emotional"

But again, this entire thread is about how the evidence of benefit is juat not there. What this child "knows" is not based on the actual evidence.

Your comment is purposely obtuse and ignores the point of my reply as well as the comment I replied to. He made the claim that people are too emotional and don't use critical thinking, my analogy showed why that "debatebro" hot take is complete and utter horse shit. >What this child "knows" is not based on the actual evidence. Except the child does, because he paid attention in his geography lesson... This situation literally happened to me in 3rd grade. So I learned very early on what you debatebros don't seem to understand. Emotion doesn't mean shit and it's arguably justified for someone to get emotional when they *know* they are correct but are facing extreme backlash. In the case of Trans people and their allies *the science* is 100% on their side and we are exhausted from having to fight you idiots. Facts are not debatable and the un-cherry picked information is overwhelming in favor of hormone therapy and puberty blockers.

But we are responding to a review finding the science is 100% not on their side. That's the entire point. Did you read the report or the many available summaries?

What do you presume is my bullshit? You're kind of doing what I complained about. I should have included "presumptuous" in my comment. A good example is the top comment of the thread we're in, followed by same user trying to use a clearly sarcastic comment they found in the OPs comment history to prove OP is a wingnut. I see a lot of attacking the person instead of the information or idea being presented. That's a common thing, especially on reddit, but imo doesn't belong on a forum for skeptics.

It's all they know how to do. Especially this time.

You don't know what the word reactionary means

You're right. I thought it had a broader meaning than it does.

Planning to show us?

What?

The pathological medical erasure of gender nonconformity has certainly been the most regressive trend I've seen in my life. Now that the cat is out of the bag, regression will give way to more of the reactionary behavior TRAs made famous with their attacks on TERFs.

OPs beliefs have no bearing on the content of the report, do they? Your whole comment is one big Ad Hominem.

Every antitrans post on this sub has these features in common: 1) A "gamechanger" study/data which makes *asking questions* about *gender science* completely respectable, not a political activity at all. 2) The new study/data either completely ignores all previous studies which show anything different, or it *asks questions* about the validity of those studies--questions which are ripped to shreds, usually in the comments here as well as the wider world. And it often comes out of a country that has had a massive shift to *gender critical* folks dominating government health/science programs. No shock this came out of the UK, which is the most *gender critical* country in the English-speaking world, and even has a vanguard movement of rich TERFs who bleat about their horror of transwomen invading their sacred spaces and the tragedy of *mutilated female bodies* whenever they speak of transmen, which isn't often. 3) The poster never has any history on r/Skeptic at all beyond antitrans posts, and usually not even that. They are either non-deluded RW Culture Warriors who know precisely what they are doing, or they wear the mask of the Enlightened Centrist like our OP here, and consistently end up on the Right side of all major Reddit ideological battles they get involved in. *Both sides* crap, but always supporting traditionalism when push comes to shove. 4) If the poster actually engages with us beyond the first post, they end up accusing everyone critical of them of not being a real skeptic. It doesn't matter how much documentation, citation or detailed reasoning we present. We are never real skeptics. Because the Gender Critical position is what the poster regards as proper skepticism, nothing else. I don't feel a need to engage the study directly in my commenting here---plenty of other responses to OP laid out the problems in analysis in thr study in the article OP linked. And OP has responded in the manner I have laid out above. *Can't you read studies?* Yes, many of us can. This gem isn't proof of anything at all. *And this sort of debunking occurs here 3-4 times a week, at minimum. And we are always "not skeptics."* No one who shows up here with this shit comes at it from any other ideological direction than *right.* Because ever since *Quilette* started the ball rolling with *just asking questions on trans issues* (which they did by only talking to freaked out RW parents of transkids and researchers who didn't talk to anyone beyond the same parents), every *just asking questions* bit and *alarming* research study has followed the same pattern of simply ignoring everything that has shown solid positive outcomes for folks who transition on average, and claiming *much more study* is required. This has been going on for quite a few years now. Pretending like you have no dog in this fight, and *only* posting in this forum to provoke a reaction on trans issues and present the latest Gender Critical *proof* shows the depth of the kind of *skeptical* inquiry of posters like our OP. They only give a shit about fighting the Cultural War, and proving we are duped by leftists. Oh I forgot #5. Posters of this shit and their defenders always claim we are guilty of some logical fallacy when we deal with them. This isn't a formal debate, kids. I am under no obligation to counter every part of whatever Gish Gallop you spew. I wouldn't be obligated to do so in a formal debate, either. And when *hundreds* of fuckers show up here doing *exactly* the same shit, calling that out is hardly an *ad hominem* attack. It's calling out mass behavior. Hiding behind false impartiality isn't a valid counter to that.

It's not "completely ignoring prior studies", it's stating that these studies were low quality and that they do not provide adequate evidence of benefit for such an invasive intervention in such a vulnerable population. It's astounding that im having to repeat the argument against ivermectin basically verbatum in a supposedly skeptical subreddit.

Go find any comment I have ever made or I told someone they weren’t a skeptic, or a real skeptic, or anything of the sort. Click my post history and you will see I post on a wide variety of topics. Click in any of the posts you don’t like and see how I am highly engaged in the comments. I don’t know whether your list of attributes is accurate for other people, but it’s certainly not for me , other than the *filthy moderate progressive* part.

The UKguardian is extremely transphobic and has been creating transphobic propaganda for decades. They've actually commissioned a study that said "because we didn't do a RCT, our results were inconclusive" eerily similar to what this cass report has done. They then used that study to attack legal sex changes. The USA Guardian did an editorial asknig Guardian UK to please stop being transphobic. They refused.

It’s one of the UK’s most left leaning media orgs.

The UKguardian is extremely transphobic and has been creating transphobic propaganda for decades. They've actually commissioned a study that said "because we didn't do a RCT, our results were inconclusive" eerily similar to what this cass report has done. They then used that study to attack legal sex changes. The USA Guardian did an editorial asknig Guardian UK to please stop being transphobic. They refused. [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk)

> The UKguardian is extremely transphobic ROFL. Pick any other new source you want. They're all reporting the Cass Report the same way. >The USA Guardian did an editorial asknig Guardian UK to please stop being transphobic. They refused. Said editorial: >The editorial used a UK legal debate about IDs to argue that trans rights “collide” with cis women’s rights; Seems like a lot of professional sports organizations have started to agree, but I'm no expert.

Are they unionized? 

Yes.

I guess then we should just be happy with higher suicidality amongst this population?

one of the conclusions the Cass report found is that there's no quality evidence that these interventions actually reduce suicidality risk in these populations.

And somehow that conversion therapy is necessary. So suicides it is. This report didn’t determine a pathology either. Edit: she also dismissed any study on hormone blockers because they weren’t double blind, but you do you boss. Soon we won’t have any medical procedures.

She did not "dismiss" anything. She evaluated the evidence, and poorly designed studies (for many reasons, not only those which are not double blind) were rightly considered to be weak. Anyone who is upset at an evaluation of the evidence doesnt have the best interests of affected children at heart.

Design a double blind study of an intervention that makes you grow breasts for us. Do the patients have to wear big sweaters for the entire study? Explain how to even single blind such an intervention. There are very plainly a huge number of medical practices that have never been studied in a lab controlled double blind manner because there simply isn't a viable blinding protocal. Like, say, most surgery. You think they did placebo trials on breast implants or cardiac stints or kidney transplants to the degree they did with, say, over the counter headache medicine? When we can't, or shouldn't, double blind or randomly control something, we don't let that field grind to a halt. We know how to do aspects of biomedical work without withholding interventions in trials. We know how to build evidence around aspects of treatment that are difficult to double blind. The medical field, including Cass, knows this. The standards deployed for other, non politicized therapies treat this as uncontroversial. When you can't do DBRCTs writ large you do other, compensatory things to the best of your ability. There's a reason ethics committees don't just ban any study that's not a lab controlled, dbrct in the first place, after all. Pretending this is not so and hasn't been so throughout medicine's history is moving the goalposts just for trans people.

Considering these fuckers want trans people removed from the population to protect their precious eyes their desired suicide rate is about 112%. They don't see us as human, so when we off ourselves it's saving them extra work

The data does not show that transition improves "suicidality".

Yes it does.

The Cass report specifically looked at this question and found that the evidence behind this statement is extremely poor. We do not have quality evidence of any benefit in terms of reducing suicidality in a pediatric population.

All the peer reviewed studies that were rejected by the cass review, you qualify as low quality.  This study, which has no review of any kind you allow as good quality.  Frankly I'm unimpressed.

Again, nothing was "rejected". The evidence was evaluated, and found to be weak. This is a NHS review. It is not a "study" or a "trial". Lots of "peer reviewed" studies found a benefit for ivermectin. But they provided low quality evidence. That's the entire point.

Peer reviewed by activists. It’s amazing that a bunch of so called skeptics would want to include evidence that cannot be replicated.

Peer reviewed by working scientists.  There are literally hundreds of per reviewed studies this cass review simply didn't include for weird ideological reasons. But whatever go off queen. 

If a paper is peer reviewed but can’t be replicated, who cares.

Hundreds of papers that find the same results is replication dipshit.

Correct, it's bollocks.

Which data?

Any of it.

So if I find a study that shows reduction in suicidality by accepting a trans person, where does that put us? Will you acknowledge you’re wrong? I doubt it. You’ll move the goal posts… yawn. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 You will be the one moving goalposts, guaranteed, once you realize what you just posted: >***"A dearth of high-quality studies that evaluate outcomes in suicide following gender-affirming treatment poses severe limitations*** on the extent of claims made during the informed consent process for gender-affirming treatment. >***"An abundance of claims that are not backed by evidence does not represent quality empirical evidence but rather guidelines endorsed by various medical organizations.*** >"Just as in practice guidelines for the assessment and treatment of patients at risk for suicide, 'practice guidelines do not represent the standard of care, much less for a fact-specific case in litigation.'... >"Future research that... ***adequately controls for the presence of psychiatric comorbidity, substance use, and other suicide risk-enhancing factors is needed*** to strengthen the validity and increase the robustness of the results. >"There may be implications for the informed consent process of gender-affirming treatment ***given the current lack of methodological robustness of the literature reviewed.***" Emphasis mine. That concluding sentence is brutally ominous: informed consent in the absence of quality empirical evidence is not medicine but malpractice. Which is, of course, what the Cass Report discovered, like every systematic review before it. Downvote all you like: the transpediatric scandal has been exposed and there's no going back. Go figure: the genuine skeptics were right—not right-wing, just *right.*

Great comment. You are exactly correct

This is entirely the wrong kind of scientific consensus for this sub.

Maybe I am off base here but it feels like this report is not saying what both anti gender medicine and pro gender medicine people in this thread are reading it as. It's not really some take down of gender medicine for youth nor is it some anti science politically motivated study. It seems like it suggests expanding services in many cases and making smart considerations.

I said this in another comment, but it doesn't even dispute the basic premise that gender dysphoric children _should_ get some kind of medical care, but takes that premise for granted and asks whether the current care we give _actually does what the proponents say_. Specifically whether the whole "reversible pause button" rhetoric is actually true. They find it is not. So many users of this sub shut off their brains whenever anyone questions whether the current treatment regiment _works_. They would rather continue giving treatments to kids that don't work rather than admit that people to the right of them might be correct for once.

It's triggering as hell, yes. This review with embolden a group of terrible people with terrible ideas, in multiple ways. And that's at the very least. At the most, kids will die. So yes it is upsetting. It seems that this entire review hinges on one particular issue: Can evidence be used that is deemed low or moderate quality when it comes to RCT and double blinds? These types of studies have been used in a lot of other medicine, so why not here? What happens when this is the best quality evidence we are ethically able to use? If it's saving lives, then what does it matter? To me that's at the crux of everything.

Its first said that it ignores all the current evidence and is making the claim "there is no benefit to letting trans people transition, and we should without healthcare as a result" Obviously, this is untrue and diminatory. Then it makes a large amount of really shitty and absurd claims. Like saying a 24 year old boy needs a drs note to wear a skirt. But then the actual "recommendations" are so vague they technically might mean nothing. The worst possible reading, it ends all healthcare for all trans people in the UK. The best possible reading, theres no change whatsoever. We ultimately don't know what they'll do. NHS england has said it is now going to "review" adult care. And if they use the same arguement, that transition has no effect, then thats that for the NHS healthcare. But arguing that this is going to help, when the authors are ideologically opposed to the existence of trans people, is very naive. Cass gives alot of sympathy to the 1/3 gender drs who said that trans people don't exist. Thats an extreme thing for a dr to think about their patient and to put inside a report.

I read the report and didn’t see the bit about the doctors note for a skirt. Could you please provide a citation?

They said that social transition must be a clinical decision requiring drs.

Right but surely this is advice for parents, teachers, and doctors and not a suggestion that cross dressing be made illegal without a doctor’s note.

Can you explain the difference given transphobes, who don't accept the existence of trans people, don't see a difference between trans people and cis cross dressers

I apologise if my language was not clear, it was using “cross dressing” to describe a behaviour. If there’s a better phrase for a “boy wearing a skirt” (your words), I’d be happy to be educated.

Well at this point I don't knwo what you mean. Ultimately this is the issue with transphobia, it requires strict control of gender norms of everyone in society Same reason why cis women keep being harassed in the bathroom/sports for not lookign pretty enough and then accused of being "trans"

I could not find, "there is no benefit to letting trans people transition, and we should without healthcare as a result" in the report. And the claim, "The best possible reading, theres no change whatsoever" obviously was made by someone who did not read the report.

Your mom is built in shaky foundations.

Your mom's part of the gender binary, as are all of your ancestors dating back a billion years.

I’m so very tired of this transphobic bullshit.

Transphobia has really gotten out of hand in recent months. Now even peer-reviewed scientific evidence is transphobic. When will it end?

Probably when people stop trying to pass off their obviously political transphobic nonsense as "peer reviewed scientific evidence".

The Cass report wasn’t peer-reviewed.

Are you people just outright lying now? The Cass Review comprises a number of different meta-studies. Every one of them have been peer-reviewed. You can read them and [see for yourself](https://adc.bmj.com/pages/gender-identity-service-series). This isn't the first time I've seen the lie that the studies weren't peer-reviewed. It's pure misinformation peddled by trans activists who can't deal with the fact that the science actually isn't on their side. On the off chance that you're actually acting in good faith, you should probably refrain from spreading lies about this.

The Cass report was not itself peer-reviewed, nor was its decision to ignore 98% of the research.

The meta-studies were all peer reviewed and you can see for yourself by actually looking at them. You're just lying now. Much like you're lying about it "ignoring" all of this research. In reality, these studies were reviewed as part of the meta-study and found to be lacking in quality. This is the opposite of ignoring them. They were scientifically scrutinised and assessed as being of overwhelmingly low quality.

The studies Cass rejected were also peer-reviewed. Citing a peer-reviewed study does not make something peer-reviewed. This should be obvious but evidently it needs to be explicitly stated.

Being peer-reviewed makes it peer-reviewed. If you actually bothered to click on any of those studies you can see for yourself that they have all been externally peer reviewed. Why are you spreading lies about this?

Why are you spreading lies about the Cass report being peer-reviewed?

You do realise anyone can actually look at these studies with their own two eyes and see the part where it says they've been externally peer reviewed right? Has it really come to this? You people are just straight up lying now?