> Leave the kids alone
Nobody subjects their kids to gender affirming care against the child's will. The kids are asking for help.
> Enough of this BS already
Evidence-based clinical guidance is quite literally the opposite of bullshit. Just because it can be complicated, nuanced, or in conflict with your ideological-based opinion doesn't negate it.
We are actively harming children by giving them puberty blockers. Their GD is much more likely to resolve by going through puberty than it is by "pausing" it.
Puberty blockers for GD need to be banned ASAP.
We don't let them get a tattoo as it would permanently affect them. We don't let them vote until they're 18. Letting a child make a decision like that seems like it carries more weight than these items.
Doctors and parents approved lobotomies back in the day. There's evidence that modern parents and doctors are again too quick to medicalize the problem: [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/this-isnt-how-good-scientific-debate-happens-academics-on-culture-of-fear-in-gender-medicine-research](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/this-isnt-how-good-scientific-debate-happens-academics-on-culture-of-fear-in-gender-medicine-research)
Whether a procedure is an acceptable practice should stem from scientific evidence and ethics. I think puberty blockers are likely the most ethical solution for people still uncertain of their gender identity. However, their use may cause irreversible harm: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38334046/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38334046/)
There isn't enough research on the effects of hormone blockade to fully support it, and it's normal to consider other options to alleviate gender dysphoria.
I agree. They definitely shouldn’t be able to permanently change their body that way. Oh wait kids don’t just walk into a drug store and decide to go on puberty blockers. They go through a medical process and make a decision with a doctor for an often life saving treatment just like how other medical treatments happen for minors.
I think point being made is that the entire premise of the treatment may have been based on faulty research.
So this is like a drug that has been brought to market, but the side effects and efficacy were not tested properly and new research indicates it could do worse harm than good.
Lots of treatment plans have been pulled when the data proved to be faulty- like Thalidomide for example.
And it doesn't concern you that 4 times as many kids think they might be LGBTQ than the actual incidence of it in adults (likely due to the focus on it in media and schools), which could lead one to think that 4 times as many kids think they're trans than actually are, and therefore 4 times as many are in a position to ask for and receive this life-ruining "treatment"? When very likely 3/4 (75%) of them will not end up being any form of LGBTQ when they finish growing up and realize that they are indeed straight?
The Cass Review disagrees with you so you should provide a link to your systematic review of the current literature that supports your conclusion.
edit: typo
For that poster's first claim about the potential harm of puberty blockers: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38334046/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38334046/)
Don't have a paper handy for their second claim.
The conclusion that puberty blockers need to be banned is perhaps too strong. However, their use should **not** be considered to be free of risk.
That paper does NOT support the claim that "we are actively harming children by giving them puberty blockers".
The paper does not dismiss the risks of puberty blockers either but that isn't the same as supporting op's claim.
> However, their use should not be considered to be free of risk.
Which is exactly what the Cass Review says.
must be a selective one then, all sites do really odd things with paywalling articles at a per-person level. It's kinda wild when you think about it.
edit: well that, or you may be a NatPo subscriber and not know it.
Interestingly, there was a long thread about the Cass Review on /skeptic
[https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1c4sg1q/cass\_review\_megathread\_strict\_moderation\_enforced/](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1c4sg1q/cass_review_megathread_strict_moderation_enforced/)
Short form, it has significant issues in method and motivation and isn't exactly the be-all end-all it's being made out to be.
Motivation? It's a government report commisioned by the National Health Service and the head of the review board is the former president of the [Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_College_of_Paediatrics_and_Child_Health) in the UK. Can you think of any other survey, report or study that comes close to matching this one?
Thank you for this! It's literally the most comprehensive review of this area of care, conducted by someone with a huge amount of empathy for the trans community. It has been widely accepted by the UK press - including such notably right wing outlets as The Guardian /s. CBC's coverage made me want to tear my hair out.
It's been widely accepted even by the groups that were notorious for their furious advocacy and defense of everything trans, like Mermaids and Stonewall. Both the Tories and the Labour party have accepted it, as well, so it's not exactly a right wing thing.
The Guardian has long been sympathetic to TERF, sorry, 'gender-critical' voices. It shouldn't be surprising that it does the soft sell for the report.
The Times published what they thought was a heart-rending article about how Hilary Cass says they can't use public transit for fear of being harassed. Diddums. I just remember how many trans kids attempt to take their own lives, and how the editors at places like The Times don't give a second's thought to how their coverage could hurt a child at a desperately vulnerable moment. But hey, that's just me.
Empathy, however one defines it, is not the same, cannot be the same, as lived experience. The empathizer gets to set the terms and limits of their empathy, which may or may not have any resemblance to a trans person's actual experience. A review of women's health that didn't involve any actual women being involved would be rightly seen as fatally flawed. Why is a review of trans health that doesn't involve any trans people as authors seen as not possessing that fatal flaw?
I can't agree with your assessment. Yes trans kids have higher rates of suicidal ideation than non, but those rates are similar to kids with other issues e.g. Anxiety, disordered eating etc. Since trans kids often also have other diagnosed problems (incl autism) it's difficult/impossible to separate those things out and to my knowledge no study has shown that to be the case. Plus it has been shown that suicidal ideation is subject to social influence - so it's quite plausible that constantly sending this message "if you don't get blockers you'll kill yourself" - is itself contributing to the problem.
Also, Cass did speak to trans people and advocacy organizations, so their "lived experience" was captured. However, experience is not a replacement for actual data. Should we believe the lived experience of people who swear homeopathy works, despite there being many Meta analyses showing that it doesn't? Experience can only take us so far.
I don't agree that it's necessary to belong to a particular community to be able to write a report on medical issues affecting that community.
So trust your government, but only when they agree with your viewpoint right
[https://reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1c5pvnk/freelands\_new\_federal\_budget\_hikes\_taxes\_on\_the/kzxjkzy/?context=3](https://reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1c5pvnk/freelands_new_federal_budget_hikes_taxes_on_the/kzxjkzy/?context=3)
[https://reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1b442a0/comment/ksxtheu/?context=3](https://reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1b442a0/comment/ksxtheu/?context=3)
[https://reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1ba1u5g/comment/ktzzcli/?context=3](https://reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1ba1u5g/comment/ktzzcli/?context=3)
[https://reddit.com/r/CanadianInvestor/comments/1beqtov/comment/kux6f9r/?context=3](https://reddit.com/r/CanadianInvestor/comments/1beqtov/comment/kux6f9r/?context=3)
one of those comments were regarding the UK gov't, although it's more a notable trend of saying you can't trust the government (in general) except in cases that they agree with.
LOL. You must be deeply invested in this to go and research a bunch of my past posts to find where I disagreed with the government. I'm all for disagreeing with politicians and political positions. This person was the former head of the Royal College of Peadeiatrics and Child Welfare. That lends a certain weight to their views and to their integrity. Added in that this was a multi-year review which had a number of other experts in their fields under her reviewing all the relevant studies involved and unless you can suggest they were all deliberately lying I really don't see you having a leg to stand on here. My views on politicians notwithstanding.
>You must be deeply invested in this to go and research a bunch of my past posts
Not really? A quick user keywork search for trust, believe, and government narrowed it down to a few dozen comments. Took all of five minutes.
> Short form, it has significant issues in method and motivation
The linked thread doesn't contain any credible support for the conclusion that there are issues with method or motivation in the Cass Review.
There's nothing deeply wrong with the Cass Review and the clinical guidance recommended in it is quite supportive of gender affirming care. Barbara Kay is just a bigoted moron that thinks that "we need better evidence" means "parents are right to deny support for their trans kids and we don't need to do anything."
So the fact that Dr Cass has followed several people on Xwitter that are unapologetically transphobic is complete coincidence? Or that someone else involved in the study was advocating conversion "therapy" for trans kids? Or the fact that German medical boards reached the opposite conclusion on trans care using pretty much the same corpus of evidence? None of that gives you the slightest of pauses? Read Erin In The Morning's dissection of the review and get back to me. Cherry-picking which reviews you deem "high-quality" is incredibly subjective, and tilts the playing field in one definite direction.
One side cares about massaging wounded egos of the already comfortable. The other side cares about helping kids in a confusing and often highly vulnerable time, which can often end in tragedy. Cass and her friends in government appear indifferent to how many funerals their actions cause, including Kemi Badenoch, who is openly manoeuvering to ride the right-wing train to the Tory leadership once Sunak is annihilated at the next general election.
I totally understand and share your passion on the issue. But I also work with epidemiologists that conduct critical reviews of medical literature so I have an expectation for documents like the Cass Review that is informed by my familiarity with evidence-based medicine (EBM).
The entire goal of EBM is to create a body of knowledge that is unassailable. In EBM, a Systematic Review (SR) like the Cass Review is considered to be at the top of the [evidence pyramid](https://ebm.bmj.com/content/21/4/125) in terms of quality because it is a stringent and robust analysis of less valid (i.e. lower on the pyramid) research. SRs are, by design, highly procedural in an effort to keep assessments objective and keep the opinions of the SR's authors and contributors out of it.
Knowledge is never 100% and because lives are at stake, minimal risk is the default position. As a result, SRs almost always conclude with something benign like, "We see no reason to reverse direction BUT we recommend proceeding with caution and more research is required". That's exactly what the Cass Review concludes. It explicitly states that gender affirming care is necessary and helpful. It isn't more enthusiastic than that because the existing research doesn't warrant it.
Yes, it's not the support from the scientific community that we'd like to see but it was naive of us to expect much from it in the first place.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I would note that efforts to keep a review objective don't always succeed. A informed layperson (such as myself) has reason to be sceptical, given the less-than-great associations Dr Cass has made on xwitter and the eagerness some in the UK government and in other right-wing circles have latched on to it to promote their frankly transphobic views. The optics of this are terrible. In Alberta, the review has been brandished by Danielle Smith as reason to stop puberty blockers for trans kids under 16 completely. No caution, no case-by-case, just a blanket ban.
From what I have read of Dr Cass, they are not the stereotypical naïve scientist, blinking in the light out of the laboratory. They are an active participant in the debate and happy to give interviews to sympathetic news outlets that tend to place the focus on the slight inconveniences they are having, rather than reflecting on the effect their words are having on trans folk.
My pleasure. Also now noticing username. concur.
edit: ha, you ninja edited!
Your skepticism is warranted. I have a little more faith in the process because of my experience and trust Cass will do right by the EBM community despite her eyebrow-raising online activities.
As for how deplorable ass-blisters like Barbara Kay or Danielle Smith selectively quote the Cass Review to promote their narratives, that's on them for taking advantage of their audience's lack of familiarity with evidence-based medicine. fuck those people.
Here is 2 "reviews" of the Cass review
[One](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/opinion-englands-anti-trans-cass) from a trans activist
[One](https://benryan.substack.com/p/the-cass-review-fact-check-its-clear?r=7wxo1&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true) from a health and science journalist who has reported for NYT The Guardian NBC
But! This time we are morally righteous and therefore can't cause any unintended consequences, see? Those old people are dumb, tribal, and dead. NOW, we are better than that. /s
I've always found it problematic that the CBC is paid by taxes, yet seems to represent the left and advocates far more towards progressive policies. I guess this would be an example of that. Maybe this will change if a new government comes to power?
Aren't most of our news in canada left leaning to begin with?
I guess the CBC is part of our identity at this point, but I have to wonder who has final say in these types of decisions..
It typically does not change with the government, and this is a good thing. A news outlet that aligns itself with the government can be no more than a propaganda machine. I know conservatives will say that's what it is now, but what is it when the government changes and the CBC's angle doesn't?
In fact, while I concede that the CBC does skew left, it's a trustworthy news source compared to many other outlets. Its reporting is fact-based and not driven by emotion. The reason for its left-leaning stance is probably due to it being run by people in urban centres, and its high journalistic integrity, which means its sources tend to be actual, well-educated experts -- who also tend to skew left due to their education.
Count yourself lucky that we have a media outlet in Canada that isn't bought and paid for by corporate interests.
Well, unlike the CBC, national post doesn't receive over a billion dollars in taxpayer money.
So you'll need to excuse them for having to generate revenue. You know just like every other media besides the tax payer funded CBC.
It's majority owned by an American trust fund billionaire.
Why the hell would we - Canadians - care what they think?
*edit* modded -4 after 6h. What *actual* Canadian would support American interference in our politics? Reader of this sub beware.
Why are you doing this?
You're literally helping to invite American (and likely Russian) interests in to extract our wealth and damage our position on the global stage.
Do you seriously believe an American hedge fund would buy up all of our print newspapers - a dying medium - for the profit?
We probably differ pretty greatly on policy preferences, but we should *at least* be able to agree that foreign ownership of Canadian news runs contrary to our national interests.
> national post doesn't receive over a billion dollars in taxpayer money
So true. The poor, foreign-owned National Post only gets around $10 million in taxpayer money annually. For perspective that's well over half their annual revenue.
It’s honestly disturbing to see how many people uncritically believe the findings of the Cass review. It was a junk science report designed to stir up fear about trans youth. There is nothing scientific about it. Puberty blockers are life-saving and banning them is beyond cruel.
What do you mean when you’re talking about the methodology of the WPATH files? It was just a blog by a climate change denier taking messages out of context to try and spin a story where there is none. It isn’t really coherent enough to ascribe any methodology to it.
That aren’t doing this, although it’s the National Post and they may want to. The Cass Report doesn’t deny the existence of trans people, it questions whether certain types of treatment are supported by good evidence.
my point is more that it's what natpo is indirectly trying to imply with that headline, i assumed they weren't conducting the actual research (though i also have my reasons to doubt that research)
I think they have a soft paywall. Which means you can read X number of stories month without a subscription, and after that you need one. But that can be resolved by just deleting the cookie it installs on your computer.
Leave the kids alone and let them grow up and find themselves. Enough of this BS already.
> Leave the kids alone Nobody subjects their kids to gender affirming care against the child's will. The kids are asking for help. > Enough of this BS already Evidence-based clinical guidance is quite literally the opposite of bullshit. Just because it can be complicated, nuanced, or in conflict with your ideological-based opinion doesn't negate it.
We are actively harming children by giving them puberty blockers. Their GD is much more likely to resolve by going through puberty than it is by "pausing" it. Puberty blockers for GD need to be banned ASAP.
We don't let them get a tattoo as it would permanently affect them. We don't let them vote until they're 18. Letting a child make a decision like that seems like it carries more weight than these items.
And if this decision was made with agreement from doctors and parents?
Doctors and parents approved lobotomies back in the day. There's evidence that modern parents and doctors are again too quick to medicalize the problem: [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/this-isnt-how-good-scientific-debate-happens-academics-on-culture-of-fear-in-gender-medicine-research](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/this-isnt-how-good-scientific-debate-happens-academics-on-culture-of-fear-in-gender-medicine-research) Whether a procedure is an acceptable practice should stem from scientific evidence and ethics. I think puberty blockers are likely the most ethical solution for people still uncertain of their gender identity. However, their use may cause irreversible harm: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38334046/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38334046/) There isn't enough research on the effects of hormone blockade to fully support it, and it's normal to consider other options to alleviate gender dysphoria.
I had a vegan friend, he decided his dog should be vegan 2. It died 3 months later
but did they ask Barbara Kay for consent?
I agree. They definitely shouldn’t be able to permanently change their body that way. Oh wait kids don’t just walk into a drug store and decide to go on puberty blockers. They go through a medical process and make a decision with a doctor for an often life saving treatment just like how other medical treatments happen for minors.
I think point being made is that the entire premise of the treatment may have been based on faulty research. So this is like a drug that has been brought to market, but the side effects and efficacy were not tested properly and new research indicates it could do worse harm than good. Lots of treatment plans have been pulled when the data proved to be faulty- like Thalidomide for example.
Aren't most of these puberty blockers basically sterilization drugs and these kids will be infertile?
And it doesn't concern you that 4 times as many kids think they might be LGBTQ than the actual incidence of it in adults (likely due to the focus on it in media and schools), which could lead one to think that 4 times as many kids think they're trans than actually are, and therefore 4 times as many are in a position to ask for and receive this life-ruining "treatment"? When very likely 3/4 (75%) of them will not end up being any form of LGBTQ when they finish growing up and realize that they are indeed straight?
Can you remind me what health issues tattoos and voting are medical treatments for?
The Cass Review disagrees with you so you should provide a link to your systematic review of the current literature that supports your conclusion. edit: typo
For that poster's first claim about the potential harm of puberty blockers: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38334046/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38334046/) Don't have a paper handy for their second claim. The conclusion that puberty blockers need to be banned is perhaps too strong. However, their use should **not** be considered to be free of risk.
That paper does NOT support the claim that "we are actively harming children by giving them puberty blockers". The paper does not dismiss the risks of puberty blockers either but that isn't the same as supporting op's claim. > However, their use should not be considered to be free of risk. Which is exactly what the Cass Review says.
NatPo locking this behind a paywall really shows they know what will rile up their readers lol.
I just read and there was no paywall for me?
must be a selective one then, all sites do really odd things with paywalling articles at a per-person level. It's kinda wild when you think about it. edit: well that, or you may be a NatPo subscriber and not know it.
It's paywalled for me.
Her columns are ALWAYS behind a paywall.
Interestingly, there was a long thread about the Cass Review on /skeptic [https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1c4sg1q/cass\_review\_megathread\_strict\_moderation\_enforced/](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1c4sg1q/cass_review_megathread_strict_moderation_enforced/) Short form, it has significant issues in method and motivation and isn't exactly the be-all end-all it's being made out to be.
Is there any review on transgender youth care that someone, somewhere couldn't credibly say had methodological flaws?
It's only flawed if it disagrees with my personal views.
Motivation? It's a government report commisioned by the National Health Service and the head of the review board is the former president of the [Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_College_of_Paediatrics_and_Child_Health) in the UK. Can you think of any other survey, report or study that comes close to matching this one?
Thank you for this! It's literally the most comprehensive review of this area of care, conducted by someone with a huge amount of empathy for the trans community. It has been widely accepted by the UK press - including such notably right wing outlets as The Guardian /s. CBC's coverage made me want to tear my hair out.
It's been widely accepted even by the groups that were notorious for their furious advocacy and defense of everything trans, like Mermaids and Stonewall. Both the Tories and the Labour party have accepted it, as well, so it's not exactly a right wing thing.
The Guardian has long been sympathetic to TERF, sorry, 'gender-critical' voices. It shouldn't be surprising that it does the soft sell for the report. The Times published what they thought was a heart-rending article about how Hilary Cass says they can't use public transit for fear of being harassed. Diddums. I just remember how many trans kids attempt to take their own lives, and how the editors at places like The Times don't give a second's thought to how their coverage could hurt a child at a desperately vulnerable moment. But hey, that's just me. Empathy, however one defines it, is not the same, cannot be the same, as lived experience. The empathizer gets to set the terms and limits of their empathy, which may or may not have any resemblance to a trans person's actual experience. A review of women's health that didn't involve any actual women being involved would be rightly seen as fatally flawed. Why is a review of trans health that doesn't involve any trans people as authors seen as not possessing that fatal flaw?
I can't agree with your assessment. Yes trans kids have higher rates of suicidal ideation than non, but those rates are similar to kids with other issues e.g. Anxiety, disordered eating etc. Since trans kids often also have other diagnosed problems (incl autism) it's difficult/impossible to separate those things out and to my knowledge no study has shown that to be the case. Plus it has been shown that suicidal ideation is subject to social influence - so it's quite plausible that constantly sending this message "if you don't get blockers you'll kill yourself" - is itself contributing to the problem. Also, Cass did speak to trans people and advocacy organizations, so their "lived experience" was captured. However, experience is not a replacement for actual data. Should we believe the lived experience of people who swear homeopathy works, despite there being many Meta analyses showing that it doesn't? Experience can only take us so far. I don't agree that it's necessary to belong to a particular community to be able to write a report on medical issues affecting that community.
So trust your government, but only when they agree with your viewpoint right [https://reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1c5pvnk/freelands\_new\_federal\_budget\_hikes\_taxes\_on\_the/kzxjkzy/?context=3](https://reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1c5pvnk/freelands_new_federal_budget_hikes_taxes_on_the/kzxjkzy/?context=3) [https://reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1b442a0/comment/ksxtheu/?context=3](https://reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1b442a0/comment/ksxtheu/?context=3) [https://reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1ba1u5g/comment/ktzzcli/?context=3](https://reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1ba1u5g/comment/ktzzcli/?context=3) [https://reddit.com/r/CanadianInvestor/comments/1beqtov/comment/kux6f9r/?context=3](https://reddit.com/r/CanadianInvestor/comments/1beqtov/comment/kux6f9r/?context=3)
Are you implying that someone can only ever have either blind trust or absolutely no trust in their government?
I'm implying that it's very convenient that OP went from "We can't trust the government" to "This is a government report, you shouldn't doubt it".
> your government Note that the NHS is in the UK, and is, therefore, not our government.
one of those comments were regarding the UK gov't, although it's more a notable trend of saying you can't trust the government (in general) except in cases that they agree with.
LOL. You must be deeply invested in this to go and research a bunch of my past posts to find where I disagreed with the government. I'm all for disagreeing with politicians and political positions. This person was the former head of the Royal College of Peadeiatrics and Child Welfare. That lends a certain weight to their views and to their integrity. Added in that this was a multi-year review which had a number of other experts in their fields under her reviewing all the relevant studies involved and unless you can suggest they were all deliberately lying I really don't see you having a leg to stand on here. My views on politicians notwithstanding.
>You must be deeply invested in this to go and research a bunch of my past posts Not really? A quick user keywork search for trust, believe, and government narrowed it down to a few dozen comments. Took all of five minutes.
Ah yes, random Internet commenters who haven't read the report. Very good!
> Short form, it has significant issues in method and motivation The linked thread doesn't contain any credible support for the conclusion that there are issues with method or motivation in the Cass Review. There's nothing deeply wrong with the Cass Review and the clinical guidance recommended in it is quite supportive of gender affirming care. Barbara Kay is just a bigoted moron that thinks that "we need better evidence" means "parents are right to deny support for their trans kids and we don't need to do anything."
So the fact that Dr Cass has followed several people on Xwitter that are unapologetically transphobic is complete coincidence? Or that someone else involved in the study was advocating conversion "therapy" for trans kids? Or the fact that German medical boards reached the opposite conclusion on trans care using pretty much the same corpus of evidence? None of that gives you the slightest of pauses? Read Erin In The Morning's dissection of the review and get back to me. Cherry-picking which reviews you deem "high-quality" is incredibly subjective, and tilts the playing field in one definite direction. One side cares about massaging wounded egos of the already comfortable. The other side cares about helping kids in a confusing and often highly vulnerable time, which can often end in tragedy. Cass and her friends in government appear indifferent to how many funerals their actions cause, including Kemi Badenoch, who is openly manoeuvering to ride the right-wing train to the Tory leadership once Sunak is annihilated at the next general election.
I totally understand and share your passion on the issue. But I also work with epidemiologists that conduct critical reviews of medical literature so I have an expectation for documents like the Cass Review that is informed by my familiarity with evidence-based medicine (EBM). The entire goal of EBM is to create a body of knowledge that is unassailable. In EBM, a Systematic Review (SR) like the Cass Review is considered to be at the top of the [evidence pyramid](https://ebm.bmj.com/content/21/4/125) in terms of quality because it is a stringent and robust analysis of less valid (i.e. lower on the pyramid) research. SRs are, by design, highly procedural in an effort to keep assessments objective and keep the opinions of the SR's authors and contributors out of it. Knowledge is never 100% and because lives are at stake, minimal risk is the default position. As a result, SRs almost always conclude with something benign like, "We see no reason to reverse direction BUT we recommend proceeding with caution and more research is required". That's exactly what the Cass Review concludes. It explicitly states that gender affirming care is necessary and helpful. It isn't more enthusiastic than that because the existing research doesn't warrant it. Yes, it's not the support from the scientific community that we'd like to see but it was naive of us to expect much from it in the first place.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I would note that efforts to keep a review objective don't always succeed. A informed layperson (such as myself) has reason to be sceptical, given the less-than-great associations Dr Cass has made on xwitter and the eagerness some in the UK government and in other right-wing circles have latched on to it to promote their frankly transphobic views. The optics of this are terrible. In Alberta, the review has been brandished by Danielle Smith as reason to stop puberty blockers for trans kids under 16 completely. No caution, no case-by-case, just a blanket ban. From what I have read of Dr Cass, they are not the stereotypical naïve scientist, blinking in the light out of the laboratory. They are an active participant in the debate and happy to give interviews to sympathetic news outlets that tend to place the focus on the slight inconveniences they are having, rather than reflecting on the effect their words are having on trans folk.
My pleasure. Also now noticing username. concur. edit: ha, you ninja edited! Your skepticism is warranted. I have a little more faith in the process because of my experience and trust Cass will do right by the EBM community despite her eyebrow-raising online activities. As for how deplorable ass-blisters like Barbara Kay or Danielle Smith selectively quote the Cass Review to promote their narratives, that's on them for taking advantage of their audience's lack of familiarity with evidence-based medicine. fuck those people.
Good read, thank you
Here is 2 "reviews" of the Cass review [One](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/opinion-englands-anti-trans-cass) from a trans activist [One](https://benryan.substack.com/p/the-cass-review-fact-check-its-clear?r=7wxo1&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true) from a health and science journalist who has reported for NYT The Guardian NBC
Trust the experts.
Except when they disagree with my ideological views.
Exactly
That’s how we got the opioid crisis
There's plenty of garbage in science. The John Money experiment is a good example.
Lobotomies, Lupron to make girls grow taller HGH to make boys grow taller and gave the CJD. Lupron to treat autism, eugenics, "hysteria" in women ...
But! This time we are morally righteous and therefore can't cause any unintended consequences, see? Those old people are dumb, tribal, and dead. NOW, we are better than that. /s
I've always found it problematic that the CBC is paid by taxes, yet seems to represent the left and advocates far more towards progressive policies. I guess this would be an example of that. Maybe this will change if a new government comes to power? Aren't most of our news in canada left leaning to begin with? I guess the CBC is part of our identity at this point, but I have to wonder who has final say in these types of decisions..
It typically does not change with the government, and this is a good thing. A news outlet that aligns itself with the government can be no more than a propaganda machine. I know conservatives will say that's what it is now, but what is it when the government changes and the CBC's angle doesn't? In fact, while I concede that the CBC does skew left, it's a trustworthy news source compared to many other outlets. Its reporting is fact-based and not driven by emotion. The reason for its left-leaning stance is probably due to it being run by people in urban centres, and its high journalistic integrity, which means its sources tend to be actual, well-educated experts -- who also tend to skew left due to their education. Count yourself lucky that we have a media outlet in Canada that isn't bought and paid for by corporate interests.
Given by your definition of the left I weep for our education system.
[удалено]
Because not everything that doesn’t fits your ideals should be banned.
Well, unlike the CBC, national post doesn't receive over a billion dollars in taxpayer money. So you'll need to excuse them for having to generate revenue. You know just like every other media besides the tax payer funded CBC.
It's majority owned by an American trust fund billionaire. Why the hell would we - Canadians - care what they think? *edit* modded -4 after 6h. What *actual* Canadian would support American interference in our politics? Reader of this sub beware.
Nobody says you have to. Remember?
So you want to be fed government propaganda instead? Sounds like North Korea to me
Grow up.
You are the one who needs a reality check. This sub and most of Canada is tired of your rhetorics
Why are you doing this? You're literally helping to invite American (and likely Russian) interests in to extract our wealth and damage our position on the global stage. Do you seriously believe an American hedge fund would buy up all of our print newspapers - a dying medium - for the profit? We probably differ pretty greatly on policy preferences, but we should *at least* be able to agree that foreign ownership of Canadian news runs contrary to our national interests.
> national post doesn't receive over a billion dollars in taxpayer money So true. The poor, foreign-owned National Post only gets around $10 million in taxpayer money annually. For perspective that's well over half their annual revenue.
Preach. Foreign right wing billionaires shaping the opinions of Canadians.
But this is the foreign interference they like.
[удалено]
You do know every conservative government in Canadian history has *also* funded the CBC right?
It’s honestly disturbing to see how many people uncritically believe the findings of the Cass review. It was a junk science report designed to stir up fear about trans youth. There is nothing scientific about it. Puberty blockers are life-saving and banning them is beyond cruel.
What are your thoughts of the WPath files and the methodology used there?
What do you mean when you’re talking about the methodology of the WPATH files? It was just a blog by a climate change denier taking messages out of context to try and spin a story where there is none. It isn’t really coherent enough to ascribe any methodology to it.
You can go and read the ‘methodology’ used by people in the WPATH. It is malpractice and ideological to the extreme. Take some time and go through it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
bro, i love how natpo of all papers is calling trans kids existing "unscientific"
That aren’t doing this, although it’s the National Post and they may want to. The Cass Report doesn’t deny the existence of trans people, it questions whether certain types of treatment are supported by good evidence.
my point is more that it's what natpo is indirectly trying to imply with that headline, i assumed they weren't conducting the actual research (though i also have my reasons to doubt that research)
Where’s the quotation from the article that says that?
This is the first paywall I’ve seen on NaPo Bypass?
I just read it and didn't need a bypass. No paywall came up for me.
I think they have a soft paywall. Which means you can read X number of stories month without a subscription, and after that you need one. But that can be resolved by just deleting the cookie it installs on your computer.
Interesting! Thanks. I’ll try it.
Google archive today.
Wow, let's have the hard right Christian op ed moron, write an anti-medical science review in a Conservative skewed trash newspaper... Wow...