AnarchoNinaAnalyzes<p>As another trans commentator mentioned recently, I think the most telling sign that NHS England's now infamous "Cass Review" is a pile of ideologically motived, pseudoscientific trash is that anyone from outside the U.K. who has reviewed the findings and methodology of the study has identified it as a clearly political document that has no business being referenced in the context of medical care guidelines; including numerous medical bodies that deal with trans care (WPATH, USPATH), the Yale Law department, and even notable anti-trans media outlets like the New York Times. In fact, the only people who seem to regard the document as a credible review of youth trans care policies are anti-trans moral panic crusaders and the government of TERF Island (whether Conservative, or Labour.) </p><p>For more information on why that is, let's turn to a recent article in Scientific American by Cal Horton and Ruth Pierce:</p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240807184818/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-k-s-cass-review-badly-fails-trans-children/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">web.archive.org/web/2024080718</span><span class="invisible">4818/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-k-s-cass-review-badly-fails-trans-children/</span></a></p><p>The U.K.’s Cass Review Badly Fails Trans Children</p><p>"While the Cass Review has been presented by the U.K. media, politicians and some prominent doctors as a triumph of objective inquiry, its most controversial recommendations are based on prejudice rather than evidence. Instead of helping young people, the review has caused enormous harm to children and their families, to democratic discourse and to wider principles of scientific endeavour. There is an urgent need to critically examine the actual context and findings of the report.</p><p>Since its 2020 inception, the Cass Review’s anti-trans credentials have been clear. It explicitly excluded trans people from key roles in research, analysis and oversight of the project, while sidelining most practitioners with experience in trans health care. The project centered and sympathized with anti-trans voices, including professionals who deny the very existence of trans children. Former U.K. minister for women and equalities Kemi Badenoch, who has a history of hostility toward trans people even though her role was to promote equality within the government, boasted that the Cass Review was only possible because of her active involvement.</p><p>The methodology underpinning the Cass Review has been extensively criticized by medical experts and academics from a range of disciplines. Criticism has focused especially on the effect of bias on the Cass approach, double standards in the interpretation of data, substandard scientific rigor, methodological flaws and a failure to properly substantiate claims. For example, although the existing literature reports a wide range of important benefits of social transition and no credible evidence of harm, the Cass Review cautions against it. The review also dismisses substantial documented benefits of adolescent medical transition as underevidenced while highlighting risks based on evidence of significantly worse quality. A warning about impaired brain maturation, for instance, cites a single, very short speculative paper that in turn rests on one experimental study with female mice. Meanwhile extensive qualitative data and clinical consensus are almost entirely ignored. These issues help explain why the Cass recommendations differ from previous academic reviews and expert guidance from major medical organisations such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the American Academy of Pediatrics."</p><p>Frankly, I don't know how much I really have to add here that isn't covered by the article itself. National Health Service England put a noted transphobe in charge of proving, against all medical evidence, that youth gender affirming care was dangerous and unwarranted, and she then manipulated evidence and used pseudoscientific arguments with no basis in reality, to reach the desired conclusion. The tragic part here is that this pile of bigoted bullshit masquerading as a scientific study is now being used to deny trans youth in the U.K. vital, even life-saving access to gender affirming care with no sign that a newly elected Labour government has any intention of stopping this travesty. In fact, NHS England has announced that they intend to conduct a similar review of *adult* gender affirming care on TERF Island; just in case you think trans people were exaggerating when we said this was all about conducting an anti-trans pogrom under the auspices of "protecting the children." </p><p>The plain truth here is that the Cass Review is a bigoted, winger fever dream full of ideological nonsense and false accusations about what gender affirming care for adolescents actually entails; but despite this reality being pointed out by literally everyone aside from motivated parties in the U.K., it's already destroying trans lives all across TERF Island. </p><p><a href="https://social.treehouse.systems/tags/TransRights" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>TransRights</span></a> <a href="https://social.treehouse.systems/tags/UKPol" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>UKPol</span></a> <a href="https://social.treehouse.systems/tags/CassReview" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>CassReview</span></a> <a href="https://social.treehouse.systems/tags/Pogrom" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Pogrom</span></a> <a href="https://social.treehouse.systems/tags/TERFIsland" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>TERFIsland</span></a></p>