Cass Review Checklist - The Verdict
How do we measure the worth of the Cass Review now it has come out?
The Cass Review Final Report has been published. Recently, I published a checklist against which we could measure it. Here is that list again, with commentary as to whether the review made the grade:
1. Will it perpetuate the lie that some people can actually *be* transgender? This is used as an excuse for the availability of medical interventions despite there being no evidence of clinical justification or net benefit.
Yes, sadly, it did.
2. Will it continue to rely on gender incongruence (aka gender dysphoria) as if it were a valid diagnosis? We know these "diagnoses" are in fact collections of feelings, and we've known for years they are frequently faked.
Patients 'coached to fast-track sex change treatment'
Yes, sadly, it did.
3. Will it acknowledge the existence of transgender ideation as a precursor adopting a factitious "gender identity"?
Lifecycle of Transgender Ideation | Our Duty
Our Duty Lifecycle of Transgender Ideation
https://ourduty.group/education/lifecycle-of-transgender-ideation/
No, sadly, it did not.
4. Will it acknowledge that its terms of reference were inappropriate in that it did not include adolescents over 18 years of age (or even vulnerable adults over 25)?
Surely the review was intended to deal with the phenomenon of adolescent transgender ideation? Why did it not?
Hurrah! This point was addressed adequately. Un point.
5. Will it recognise that Early Intervention can be very successful at preventing the rumination that can lead to transgender ideation becoming persistent, and sometimes intractable? If so, will such help be resourced appropriately?
Nope, no understanding of the aetiology of gender distressed was evident.
6. Will it recognise the ideological capture of the NHS by gender identity ideology and make recommendations for the wholesale removal of that ideology, and a return to evidence-based medicine?
No, sadly, it did not.
7. Will it use objective language?
Or will it use the language of gender identity ideology and so perpetuate the lies of the gender identity advocacy movement?
No, sadly, it did not. The language of the ideologues peppered the entire report.
8. Will it make recommendations that render CAMHS and the NHS safe for children and young people with transgender ideation?
This is the most crucial question. If medicalisation remains an option (at any age on the NHS), then young people will not be safe.
No, criminally, the medical pathway remains an option.
9. Will it uphold the rights of parents to refuse to accommodate the tenets of gender identity ideology to the extent that it renders moves to embed transgenderism into society via 'conversion therapy' laws untenable?
No, the review did not address this important issue. Although parents’ role was referenced in a positive manner. Maybe half a mark.
10. Will it recognise the value of 'Supportive Waiting' (watchful waiting with added timely, targeted counselling interventions) as the best course for chronic transgender ideation?
No, the review did not look at current best practice at all.
11. Cass has previously stated we ought to accept gender identity ideology because of a 'generational shift'. She was wrong to do so. Will her final review reject the Zeitgeist in favour of objectivity?
Sadly not. The validity of generational trends was not questioned yet they appeared to inform the report.
12. Will the final Cass Review address the ethical case for banning opposite-sex imitation medicine?
It was touched upon “one of the most challenging ethical questions is whether and/ or when medical intervention is the correct response”. But the question was left unexplored.
13. Will there be recognition that transgender ideation affects different cohorts in different ways, and that the science for pre-pubescent boys, or middle-aged men, does not apply to adolescents of either sex? i.e. transgenderism is not homogenous.
Hurrah! Yes, the Cass Review got there in the end. Un point.
14. Will the Cass Review offer recommendations for holistic treatment of detransitioners?
The victims of the trans medical scandal deserve the best possible remediation.
Hurrah! Yes, the Cass Review got there in the end. Un point.
15. Will there be acknowledgment that social norms are a significant contributory factor in transgender ideation and that their management requires a similar approach to that taken with diesel particulates when they were implicated in childhood asthma?
There was acknowledgment that social factors were at play. However, there were no public health recommendations to address this craze. Half a point.
So there we have it.
Out of a possible score of 15, the Cass Review garnered the grand total of 4 points.
So we are 4/15ths the way to resolving this medical scandal.
The fight goes on.
If you can, please subscribe, or make a donation to Our Duty, thank you.