• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cass Report

If you found the whole "Disaster at McMaster" narrative interesting, you might well find the emails embedded in this substack post of interest as well. They expose a rift within the review team between folks like Dr. Guyatt who warn against those who would conclude that GAM needs to be curtailed and folks like Dr. Montante who "cannot support continuing the current state of transgendered care based on the data, as it stands."
 
theprestige said:
He goes on to say:


The thing he's ignoring is that puberty blocking and trans-affirming surgery are irreversible procedures with *lots* of evidence about their downsides.

He's basically arguing that even though we have no idea if this is more good than bad, we should do it anyway because we haven't thought of anything better yet. At least therapy doesn't do lasting harm to the body.
Click to expand...
:oops: "Little Alex wants to cut off their left arm, because they feel like it shouldn't be there. There's nothing wrong with their left arm, it's a perfectly healthy and functional left arm. But Alex has psychological distress about their left arm and really, really wants it to be amputated. We just don't know whether psychological treatment is going to be beneficial for Alex, or whether such counseling will reduce Alex's desire to cut their left arm off. Therefore we should surgically amputate Alex's arm, since we don't know if something less permanent and damaging might work out better in the long run... "

The logic is unassailable. :unsure:
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Yes, there is a reason why Cass threw out all the good scientific papers on the matter and only included two by quacks paid to provide adverse reports.
Click to expand...
This is false. Demonstrably and unequivocally untrue.
Gulliver Foyle said:
But it wasn't because of science, bub. It was simply because the whole Cass report had a predetermined conclusion and had to engage in policy based evidence making to uphold said conclusion.
Click to expand...
Don't parrot unfounded propaganda.
 
d4m10n said:
I don't buy the idea that the original approach was to "manipulate and emotionally/physically abuse the kids until they stop saying things about their gender" because kids did not yet have the words and concepts to talk about their "gender identity," and they definitely didn't have anyone giving them hope that they could physically transition from living as one sex to another. The fact that almost everyone accepted their birth sex was largely the result of them understanding that there wasn't really any viable alternative.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is true. I think kids don't need a background of DSM terms and trans debates on TV to come up with this stuff at all. As a lil gender-weird kid in the late 70s/early 80s without cable TV I was not at all aware of the cutting edge of gender anything and yet a substantial chunk of my social interaction with my peers was very literally about reluctance to identify as a girl (or boy). So to me, the idea that kids never used to think or talk about their gender and how they do/don't relate to it because nobody else introduced them to these concepts, seems myopic.

I agree that having to field a complaint like 'well Lisa was allowed to change gender, why not ME,' is new. But all I needed to think that kind of thing was possible was my imagination and general mistrust of adults due to their propensity to simplify complex situations down to 'no.'
 
Lithrael said:
So to me, the idea that kids never used to think or talk about their gender and how they do/don't relate to it because nobody else introduced them to these concepts, seems myopic.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with the idea that adults sought to "manipulate and emotionally/physically abuse the kids until they stop saying things about their gender" back when we were growing up?
 
The history of adult responses to non-gender conforming children isn't exactly one thing. There was absolutely a time when fem boys were just bullied by just about everyone. And probably butch girls in many. Certainly, that was common in the west, with generally tomboys being more accepted at least until puberty.

That is very different from medical and psychological treatment for gender dysphoria which was only a thing in the last 50 to 70 years. Which has generally not been that. Probably since the 90s its been mostly wait and see while treating any other issues. That is when parents sought treatment.
 
d4m10n said:
Do you agree with the idea that adults sought to "manipulate and emotionally/physically abuse the kids until they stop saying things about their gender" back when we were growing up?
Click to expand...
Well, like ahhell says, it's not one thing. I guess the idea I'm aiming for is that back then a typical person would never even get to the point of an actual medical or psychological attempt to deal with a nonconforming kid. You'd just put your foot down and that was it.

( I saw this once, about forty years ago, and I never forgot the last act. The film is set in the late forties but man, if this story was a tree, I hit every branch on the way down. Watching it again for the first time since then, I'm actually really impressed with the writing, and the kid's mom finally really showing that if the kid is willing to work with something she hates, she'll do something that's hard for her, too, and neither of them will have to give up everything. )
 
ahhell said:
There was absolutely a time when fem boys were just bullied by just about everyone. And probably butch girls [by] many.
Click to expand...
I can remember much of the former, but relatively little of the latter. Of course, as a young male I was in a position to notice that tomboys were treated at least okay by my same-sex peers—we generally enjoyed the novelty of having a girl or two around—but not in a good position to witness how they were treated by members of their own sex. I imagine they policed the norms of femininity at least as effectively as the boys policed themselves.
Lithrael said:
I'm actually really impressed with the writing, and the kid's mom finally really showing that if the kid is willing to work with something she hates, she'll do something that's hard for her, too, and neither of them will have to give up everything.
Click to expand...
I was a bit surprised to see a depiction of a more compassionate and empathetic father set against a more rigid and disciplinarian mother, but in the end they both seem content to allow a certain degree of (gender?) nonconformity within the carefully structured setting of single-sex scouting. I suppose Girl Scouts must've been providing a relatively safe space for tomboys this entire time.
 
You're correct that boys usually like hanging out with tomboy girls unless/until they get told not to. Regular girls usually don't get obnoxious with tomboys as long as they stay in their tomboy lane. Most bullying is standard 'you're not top tier' which non-tomboys get as well, just with maybe slightly different flavor.

Unfortunately scouts is one of those things that varies wildly by who is running it; I was in it for a while and finally quit cause all we actually did was stuff like bead crafts and singalongs. Zero camping, nothing in the woods, not even fishing! Like are you kidding me? You weren't gonna tell me boy scouts are just sitting in people's kitchens doin lil craft projects from JoAnn's.

I was however not discouraged from Having Robots And Comic Books so that part was okay.
 
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle said:
Yes, there is a reason why Cass threw out all the good scientific papers on the matter and only included two by quacks paid to provide adverse reports.

But it wasn't because of science, bub. It was simply because the whole Cass report had a predetermined conclusion and had to engage in policy based evidence making to uphold said conclusion.
Click to expand...
Eight people have now told you this is incorrect. I wonder if you'll take any of this on board, or will we see this false claim repeated next time you deign to make an appearance?
 
I also posted the above on the other forum I belong to, where it has already received this response:

It's a complete farce. Conducted by SEGM, a hate group that wants trans extinction.

There has never been the slightest genuine reason for banning this LIFE SAVING treatment or holding these so-called trials, which will not teach anyone anything new, and will come to a pre-decided, fictional conclusion.

The whole thing is about eliminating trans people. Restricting the existence of trans people as far as possible. Making life unbearable by literally force transitioning a generation of trans children into their opposite gender.

The damage being done is unforgivable, and the people supporting it are just pure evil.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to respond as it would be pointless.
 
It's absolutely appalling. They ruined countless young people's bodies with these drugs, without any solid clinical base for what they were doing, and no preliminary safety studies. They did no follow-up, so the opportunity to learn was thrown away. Piecemeal narratives from the damaged young people, and evidence from other countries, shows that this protocol is highly damaging with no clear evidence of benefit. Belated animal studies demonstrated clear adverse effects on cognition, bone density and other parameters.

So what do they do? Ban the entire thing? No. Commission more animal studies to get more "safety" data? No. Decide to recruit a whole new cohort of young people to be damaged? Oh yes, great idea.
 
Pixel42 said:
The recommended properly conducted clinical trial is finally about to start.

www.bbc.co.uk

New puberty blockers clinical trial to begin after UK ban

Those taking part in the study will be children under 16 who are going through puberty.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

This is the protocol.

The randomised part of the trial is only at short-term effects of delaying puberty suppression for one year. They will also look at outcomes in children who don't go on blockers, but there is no randomisation to whether or not puberty is suppressed.
 
Last edited:
One year. Sheesh. When the "euphoria" of getting what they want is still there, when they're absolutely motivated to deny any adverse effects, and before anything really obvious is likely to be appreciable. And how long will the the post-treatment monitoring period be?
 
Rolfe said:
It's absolutely appalling. They ruined countless young people's bodies with these drugs, without any solid clinical base for what they were doing, and no preliminary safety studies.
Click to expand...
Is there some way to build this evidence base without deciding "to recruit a whole new cohort of young people to be damaged" by puberty blockers?
 
d4m10n said:
Is there some way to build this evidence base without deciding "to recruit a whole new cohort of young people to be damaged" by puberty blockers?
Click to expand...
Rolfe mentioned one way.
Rolfe said:
So what do they do? Ban the entire thing? No. Commission more animal studies to get more "safety" data? No. Decide to recruit a whole new cohort of young people to be damaged? Oh yes, great idea.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom