4 ms·

https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/ https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r... "Given that the vast majorit

https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/ https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r... "Given that the vast majority of young people started on puberty blockers proceed from puberty blockers to masculinising/ feminising hormones, there is no evidence that puberty blockers buy time to think, and some concern that they may change the trajectory of psychosexual and gender identity development."

yoshuaw 3y ago
This is the same report which is happy to make claims such as: “For many centuries transgender people have been predominantly trans females", and then leaves it as an exercise to the reader to divine how they arrived at that. The entire report is full of similar claims and does not seem to meet the bar we have for peer-reviewed science. This is the same report cited by the linked article. It will take time to review the entire 300 page report, but as it stands it seems unlikely it will hold up to scrutiny over time.
- IlIlIllI 3y ago
  Does it really matter if this small piece of background information is unsourced? A historical treatment of trans identity isn't the focus of the report. Seems like rather an irrelevant criticism to be honest. I don't quite understand why you believe this to be a problem, or why you think this somehow undermines the rest of the work.
yoshuaw 2y ago
It did not take long for the claims the report makes to begin to unravel on closer analysis. The TransActual briefing on the Cass report [1] covers a lot of ground very succinctly, including the poor quality of supporting evidence for the claims the report makes on puberty blockers: > The Cass Report reveals that it discarded huge amounts of medical evidence, both from the UK and across the world. Out of 102 studies into puberty blockers and hormones, only 2 were included by the Cass Review team. > Further, the Report criticises the quality of evidence that WPATH (the international body which develops and monitors standards in trans healthcare worldwide) relies upon. No international evidence was considered good enough. > Many, if not most, of these exclusions are on the basis of the studies not including 'blinding' and a control group, which would be not only an unethical approach to research but also practically impossible due to the clear impacts of either puberty blockers or hormones on the patients. > In November 2022, WPATH rejected criticism around the lack of evidence around puberty blockers, stating that most of the evidence included the effects of other medication and interventions and that this was appropriate, and found that puberty blockers did have a beneficial effect for trans young people. This was ignored by the Review Team and by NHS England. For a long-established international medical standards body to simply be ignored is highly concerning. [1]: https://transactual.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/TransActual-Briefing-on-Cass-Review.pdf https://transactual.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/TransActual-Br...
- IlIlIllI 2y ago
  That briefing was written by people who clearly do not understand what they're reading. For a start, this is factually incorrect: > The Cass Report reveals that it discarded huge amounts of medical evidence, both from the UK and across the world. Out of 102 studies into puberty blockers and hormones, only 2 were included by the Cass Review team. Actually, a total of 60 studies were included: 26 in the review on puberty suppression and 34 in the review of masculinising/feminising hormone interventions. Only the lowest quality studies (43 of them) were excluded from the authors' synthesis. You can confirm this by reading chapters 14 and 15 in the overall Review: https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/0... And the systematic reviews that those chapters reference (in paragraphs 14.19 and 15.15): https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326669 https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-20... https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326670 https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-20... This briefing that attempts to critique the Review can't even get the basics right. It has unravelled only itself.

yoshuaw 3y ago

This is the same report which is happy to make claims such as: “For many centuries transgender people have been predominantly trans females", and then leaves it as an exercise to the reader to divine how they arrived at that. The entire report is full of similar claims and does not seem to meet the bar we have for peer-reviewed science. This is the same report cited by the linked article. It will take time to review the entire 300 page report, but as it stands it seems unlikely it will hold up to scrutiny over time.

IlIlIllI 3y ago
Does it really matter if this small piece of background information is unsourced? A historical treatment of trans identity isn't the focus of the report. Seems like rather an irrelevant criticism to be honest. I don't quite understand why you believe this to be a problem, or why you think this somehow undermines the rest of the work.

yoshuaw 2y ago

It did not take long for the claims the report makes to begin to unravel on closer analysis. The TransActual briefing on the Cass report [1] covers a lot of ground very succinctly, including the poor quality of supporting evidence for the claims the report makes on puberty blockers: > The Cass Report reveals that it discarded huge amounts of medical evidence, both from the UK and across the world. Out of 102 studies into puberty blockers and hormones, only 2 were included by the Cass Review team. > Further, the Report criticises the quality of evidence that WPATH (the international body which develops and monitors standards in trans healthcare worldwide) relies upon. No international evidence was considered good enough. > Many, if not most, of these exclusions are on the basis of the studies not including 'blinding' and a control group, which would be not only an unethical approach to research but also practically impossible due to the clear impacts of either puberty blockers or hormones on the patients. > In November 2022, WPATH rejected criticism around the lack of evidence around puberty blockers, stating that most of the evidence included the effects of other medication and interventions and that this was appropriate, and found that puberty blockers did have a beneficial effect for trans young people. This was ignored by the Review Team and by NHS England. For a long-established international medical standards body to simply be ignored is highly concerning. [1]: https://transactual.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/TransActual-Briefing-on-Cass-Review.pdf https://transactual.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/TransActual-Br...

IlIlIllI 2y ago
That briefing was written by people who clearly do not understand what they're reading. For a start, this is factually incorrect: > The Cass Report reveals that it discarded huge amounts of medical evidence, both from the UK and across the world. Out of 102 studies into puberty blockers and hormones, only 2 were included by the Cass Review team. Actually, a total of 60 studies were included: 26 in the review on puberty suppression and 34 in the review of masculinising/feminising hormone interventions. Only the lowest quality studies (43 of them) were excluded from the authors' synthesis. You can confirm this by reading chapters 14 and 15 in the overall Review: https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/0... And the systematic reviews that those chapters reference (in paragraphs 14.19 and 15.15): https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326669 https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-20... https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326670 https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-20... This briefing that attempts to critique the Review can't even get the basics right. It has unravelled only itself.