#cass review

[supermaliciousmoi]

There are, at most, 75 signatures left. Please sign this petition.

UK petition: An independent evaluation of the Cass review on child gender services

[ Click here to sign ]

We believe that trans healthcare should be based on unbiased research that is peer reviewed. We think that the Cass review's findings have led to restrictive practices that are being directly felt by transgender children. We feel that an independent evaluation is necessary to ensure children aren’t being unduly harmed. We think that only through a transparent process can we guarantee fair access and treatment for trans children as well as restore faith in the current NHS services.

Deadline: 12 June 2025

Graph of signatures: Click here

Who can sign?

Anyone living in the UK (regardless of citizenship)

Any UK citizen (regardless of country of residence)

[ Click here to sign ]

[ Click here to sign ]

[mywitchcultblr]

This is what happen when people take the 'your brain doesn't mature till 25' pop-sci too literally and just ran with it, also transphobia

[floral-ashes]

My favourite part of the Cass Report is where she goes: “Florence Ashley and others have shown that gatekeeping doesn’t work and should be abandoned. We disagree, not based on any evidence but because it’s incompatible with the way we’ve already decided we wanted to do things.”

[probablyasocialecologist]

[crowleys-yucca-plant]

I found a really good paper a while ago, critiquing the Cass review. Unfortunately it looks like it's been unpublished, but this article goes through some issues with it for anyone who isn't clear on why it's bad. The puberty blocker ban has now been made permanent, and the NHS website states that most children 'grow out' of being trans, despite this being proven incorrect. If people can get away with excusing these steps with fudged research and lies, where are they going to stop?

For the UK peeps!!

[useless-englandfacts]

the cass review into gender care on the NHS is depressing in many ways, but one of the most nonsensical aspects of it is how they’ve chosen to define a child as anyone under 25:

so you can vote, join the military, pay taxes, get married, have children, attend - and finish - university but you’re still not a mature adult capable of making life-changing decisions

[bread-making-vikings]

Hello, friends. It is once again time to try and bully the UK government into doing science properly.

The Cass Review, written by known transphobe Hilary Cass, was a report on UK trans healthcare, which is ultimately being used to deny services to trans people through the NHS. This includes the withdrawal of prescriptions from people who've been on them for years, have gender recognition certificates, and/or have fully medically transitioned (making it very dangerous to stop HRT), and also prevents people from starting hormones to begin with.

Maybe the most well known thing recently is the ban of puberty-blocking drugs from trans children and teens, under "safety concerns", despite them being allowed for non-trans children with precocious puberty or other conditions. This is even though the Cass Review itself actually kind of states that they work and applied suitably, but then draws a weirdly different conclusions from it.

The whole methodology of the Review is hugely suspect, with sources excluded due to a lack of double blinding, something hugely inappropriate for any studies of this kinda, and ultimately just ignoring the research it's referring to to reach a foregone conclusion. Classic UK government tbh.

Tl;dr: plz sign this and get some actual science applied to trans healthcare in the UK.

If you're not eligible to sign the petition (e.g. not a UK resident/UK citizen) then plz share but don't try to sign it - they've previously rejected petitions for too many international "suspect" votes.

[notagayman]

Yeah so fuck the cass report

[itsawritblr]

"Sex is biological fact, NHS declares."

Fuckin FINALLY.

The article's behind a paywall, so I had to grab a screenshot fast. It's not the clearest picture, and I may have cut some off.

Here's the article, if you can get around the paywall.

From BBC News via Yahoo News:

NHS England charter to stress biological sex when placing patients in wards

Transgender women should not be put on single-sex female NHS wards, the government is proposing.

The measure is part of a raft of changes to the NHS Constitution for England, the charter of rights for patients.

The proposals stress the importance of biological sex for the first time when it comes to same-sex accommodation and intimate care.

In both cases, the rights are available only where possible.

For example, same-sex accommodation rights, which have existed for years, can and are breached where there is a clinically urgent need to admit and treat a patient and do not extend to areas such as critical care or accident and emergency.

The guidance also means that trans men should not be housed on single-sex male wards.

Under the proposals:

transgender people, whose gender identity differs from their biological sex, may be provided single rooms, where appropriate

patients will have the right to request a person of the same biological sex delivers any intimate care

Health Secretary Victoria Atkins said it was about making it clear that "sex matters".

"We want to make it abundantly clear that if a patient wants same-sex care, they should have access to it wherever reasonably possible," she said.

"By putting this in the NHS Constitution, we're highlighting the importance of balancing the rights and needs of all patients, to make a healthcare system that is faster, simpler and fairer to all."

'Trampled over'

Maya Forstater, of the Sex Matters campaign group, said the changes were "excellent news".

"The confusion between 'sex' and 'gender' in official policies like the NHS Constitution is what has enabled women's rights to be trampled over in the name of transgender identities," she said.

But Cleo Madeleine, of Gendered Intelligence, said robust policies were already in place and the government had its priorities wrong.

"After 14 years of austerity, medical professionals are crying out for more funding, more resources, and better conditions for staff and patients," she said.

"The government seems hell-bent on pursuing its obsession with the transgender community instead of addressing these longstanding needs."

'Martha's rule'

The changes are part of a wider review of the NHS Constitution, which the government must complete every 10 years.

They also include a plan to embed patients and their loved ones' right to access a rapid review from outside the care team if the patient is deteriorating.

This is the right behind "Martha's rule", which is being introduced in the NHS, to ensure patients know they can ask for a second opinion, with the government providing funding to hospitals for posters and leaflets informing patients and their families.

Martha Mills died aged 13, after being admitted to King's College Hospital, south London, in 2021, having injured her pancreas slipping on to the handlebars of her bike while cycling.

She later developed sepsis - but with better care, could have survived, an inquest found.

All the changes will be consulted on over the next eight weeks, before the constitution is updated later this year.

Labour's shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said: "Rights on paper are worthless unless they are delivered in practice.

"The NHS constitution already pledges that no patient will have to share an overnight ward with patients of the opposite sex, but that is not the case for too many patients."

[bisexualseraphim]

The whole “your brain doesn’t finish developing until 25” spiel has fucking ruined society I swear. It’s such a gross misunderstanding of the original study it’s laughable, and yet people use it as scientific evidence that infantilising young adults (usually women or people perceived to be women lbr) is ethical actually.

YOUR BRAIN IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING AND DEVELOPING YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. YOU DON’T SUDDENLY WAKE UP ON YOUR 25TH BIRTHDAY WITH ALL THE MATURITY AND KNOWLEDGE YOU NEVER PREVIOUSLY POSSESSED. STOP SPREADING THIS NONSENSE

[the-land-of-women]

x

[mxactivist]

UK petition: Sandyford Clinic [Scotland] to immediately continue to prescribe trans kids hormone blockers

[ Sign here ]

Following the Cass Review, trans kids are no longer able to receive puberty blocker prescriptions from Sandyford, Scotland's only gender identity clinic for under 18s. This is devastating news for trans kids who will now see their bodies change in ways that will trigger dysphoria. It will ultimately cost lives as trans kids are driven to suicide. All this will happen because of some despicable, manufactured "trans debate", where trans kids, and adults, are being used as a scapegoat for society's problems. Trans charities and advocate groups are condemning the awful Cass Review all over the country. The only groups celebrating this dreadful document are anti-trans ones. Hormone blockers have been used for decades safely, and the vast majority of trans kids that go on to transition are happy. A common argument against blockers is that trans kids are not old enough to make such decisions. This is exactly what puberty blockers are for; to hit the pause button on any irreversible changes; to give trans kids time to make these decisions. We urge Sandyford clinic to immediately resume providing trans kids with their life-saving puberty blockers.

[ Sign here ]

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Jesse Singal

Published: Jun 27, 2024

In April Hilary Cass, a British paediatrician, published her review of gender-identity services for children and young people, commissioned by NHS England. It cast doubt on the evidence base for youth gender medicine. This prompted the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the leading professional organisation for the doctors and practitioners who provide services to trans people, to release a blistering rejoinder. WPATH said that its own guidelines were sturdier, in part because they were “based on far more systematic reviews”.

Systematic reviews should evaluate the evidence for a given medical question in a careful, rigorous manner. Such efforts are particularly important at the moment, given the feverish state of the American debate on youth gender medicine, which is soon to culminate in a Supreme Court case challenging a ban in Tennessee. The case turns, in part, on questions of evidence and expert authority.

Court documents recently released as part of the discovery process in a case involving youth gender medicine in Alabama reveal that WPATH's claim was built on shaky foundations. The documents show that the organisation’s leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews that it had commissioned from the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-Based Practice Centre (EPC) in 2018.

From early on in the contract negotiations, WPATH expressed a desire to control the results of the Hopkins team’s work. In December 2017, for example, Donna Kelly, an executive director at PATH, told Karen Robinson, the EPC's director, that the WPATH board felt the EPC researchers “cannot publish their findings independently”. A couple of weeks later, Ms Kelly emphasised that, “the [WPATH] board wants it to be clear that the data cannot be used without WPATH approval”.

Ms Robinson saw this as an attempt to exert undue influence over what was supposed to be an independent process. John Ioannidis of Stanford University, who co-authored guidelines for systematic reviews, says that if sponsors interfere or are allowed to veto results, this can lead to either biased summaries or suppression of unfavourable evidence. Ms Robinson sought to avoid such an outcome. “In general, my understanding is that the university will not sign off on a contract that allows a sponsor to stop an academic publication,” she wrote to Ms Kelly.

Months later, with the issue still apparently unresolved, Ms Robinson adopted a sterner tone. She noted in an email in March 2018 that, “Hopkins as an academic institution, and I as a faculty member therein, will not sign something that limits academic freedom in this manner,” nor “language that goes against current standards in systematic reviews and in guideline development”.

Not to reason XY

Eventually WPATH relented, and in May 2018 Ms Robinson signed a contract granting WPATH power to review and offer feedback on her team’s work, but not to meddle in any substantive way. After WPATH leaders saw two manuscripts submitted for review in July 2020, however, the parties’ disagreements flared up again. In August the WPATH executive committee wrote to Ms Robinson that WPATH had “many concerns” about these papers, and that it was implementing a new policy in which WPATH would have authority to influence the EPC team’s output—including the power to nip papers in the bud on the basis of their conclusions.

Ms Robinson protested that the new policy did not reflect the contract she had signed and violated basic principles of unfettered scientific inquiry she had emphasised repeatedly in her dealings with WPATH. The Hopkins team published only one paper after WPATH implemented its new policy: a 2021 meta-analysis on the effects of hormone therapy on transgender people. Among the recently released court documents is a WPATH checklist confirming that an individual from WPATH was involved “in the design, drafting of the article and final approval of [that] article”. (The article itself explicitly claims the opposite.) Now, more than six years after signing the agreement, the EPC team does not appear to have published anything else, despite having provided WPATH with the material for six systematic reviews, according to the documents.

No one at WPATH or Johns Hopkins has responded to multiple inquiries, so there are still gaps in this timeline. But an email in October 2020 from WPATH figures, including its incoming president at the time, Walter Bouman, to the working group on guidelines, made clear what sort of science WPATH did (and did not) want published. Research must be “thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense,” it stated. Mr Bouman and one other coauthor of that email have been named to a World Health Organisation advisory board tasked with developing best practices for transgender medicine.

Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a transwoman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care. Dr Levine’s office has not commented. Questions remain unanswered, but none of this helps WPATH’s claim to be an organisation that bases its recommendations on science. 

[ Via: https://archive.today/wJCI7 ]

--

==

So, there are 6 completed reviews sitting somewhere, that WPATH knows shows undesirable (to them) results. And they know it. And despite - or perhaps, because of - that, they wrote the insane SOC8 anyway. And then, at the behest of Rachel Levine, went back and took out the age limits, making it even more insane.

This isn't how science works, it's how a cult works.

When John Templeton Foundation commissioned a study on the efficacy of intercessory prayer, a study which unsurprisingly found that it's completely ineffective, it was forced to publish the negative results.

So, even the religious are more ethical than gender ideologues when it comes to science. This is outright scientific corruption.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

On May 31, NHS England sent a letter to every patient on the waiting list for puberty blockers, stating that possession of such blockers will be considered a crime. The letter follows an edict issued by Conservative Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Victoria Mary Atkins and also mandates that transgender youth who obtained their puberty blockers through private doctors must discontinue their medication. This letter and edict mean that the United Kingdom now has some of the harshest policies targeting transgender youth of any liberal democracy in the world. On May 29th, Atkins announced on twitter, “Today I have taken bold action to protect children following the Cass Review, using emergency powers to ban puberty blockers for new treatments of gender dysphoria from private clinics and for all purposes from overseas prescribers into Great Britain.” Following the announcement, she linked to an edict declaring an “emergency prohibition” on puberty blockers in England, Wales, and Scotland.

The prohibition relies on a decades-old law that allows for the emergency prohibition of medications without the need for a full legislative process; no vote was taken on the edict, and the order was issued just before parliament dissolved for the general election, meaning it could not be overturned. According to UK-based advocate Trans Safety Now, the last and only time such powers were used was in response to deaths among users of an herb found in some Chinese medicine in 1999. Jo Maugham, who leads the Good Law Project, stated about the use of these powers, “It is breathtaking that thousands or tens of thousands of loving families are going to be criminalized by a law made by a Minister, never approved by Parliament, subject to no consultation and the media is not reporting it." On Friday, following the announcement, Lee Hurley of Trans Writes released a copy of a letter sent to families on the NHS waiting list for puberty blockers. The letter indicates that those receiving puberty blockers from the NHS can continue taking them. However, given the enormous wait lists, a substantial number of families opted to get their puberty blockers through private practitioners registered in the European Economic Area or Switzerland—a fully legal practice in the United Kingdom. For those receiving their care through those systems, the letter states, “You will need to stop taking GnRH analogues unless you are newly prescribed them by a UK-registered doctor, nurse, or pharmacist. These medications can be safely stopped and you do not need to be weaned off.”

Critically, the edict does not only target providers; it also targets patients and their families. The letter states, “It will also be a criminal offence to possess these medicines, where the individual had reasonable cause to know that the medicine had been sold or supplied in breach of the ban.” When asked about this provision, Jo Maugham stated, “It basically says puberty blockers are being treated like other illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin.” He then followed up with the applicable law, which indicates that those who violate the ban could be imprisoned for two years. The decision comes following the publication of the Cass Review, a highly politicized document developed with a secretive list of advisors, some of whom were later found to be meeting regularly with political operatives of Republican Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida. 

The UK's hateful anti-trans crusade against gender-affirming care for trans youths continue, as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Victoria Mary Atkins (Con) issues a reckless edict ordering trans youth who obtained their puberty blockers through private doctors that they must stop using them.

[floral-ashes]

Um, holy shit?

From this critique of the Cass Review by NHS clinicians.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The methodology for the Cass review was established by a team from the University of York including Tilly Langdon, who has previously been involved in promoting Gender Exploratory Therapy – an approach which, despite its neutral-sounding name, discourages children from identifying as trans and has been likened to conversion therapy. Her approach included setting a very high bar for evidence to be considered in the review, ruling out 100 of the existing 103 studies into the use of puberty blockers and hormones to treat trans children. The reason given for excluding all these studies was that they did not incorporate a double blind approach – in other words, they did not involve giving puberty blockers to some patients and placebos to others. This might sound like a reasonable objection on the face of it – until one considers that puberty is a dramatic physical and psychological process, and people can easily tell when it’s happening to them, so a double blind simply wouldn’t work in practice. The Cass review called for more research and, again, few would disagree with this. The suggestion that treatment should be withheld in the process, however, is not neutral. It presupposes that the harm done by puberty blockers (demineralisation of bones, which is usually temporary in the short-term treatment recommended and is similar to what occurs in pregnancy) is more severe than the harm done to a trans child by going through the wrong sort of puberty. The latter is linked to high rates of self-harm and suicidal ideation, together with the need, in many cases, for extensive surgical procedures. Confusingly, the review states that children taking puberty blockers showed “no changes in gender dysphoria or body satisfaction”, which suggests that the author didn’t actually understand what puberty blockers do at all. They don’t make children feel better – they just delay a process that makes them feel worse. This is one of several oddities in a report that lacks internal consistency. It states that there is no established definition of social transition, for instance, and does not offer one, but goes on to talk about it as if there were. It also talks about autistic ‘girls’ identifying as trans in increasing numbers, treating this as mysterious and as cause for concern, despite acknowledging elsewhere that more and more girls are being diagnosed as autistic, so one would expect more diagnoses to be present within any subsection of the young female-assigned population.  Perhaps the most worrying of the review’s conclusions – which should concern people far beyond the trans community – is the suggestion that as far as NHS treatment is concerned, trans people should be treated as children until they are 25. The rational for this is that 25 is the age when (on average) the brain stops developing. As any neurologist will tell you, the brain is in fact never static, and within ten years or so of that age, it begins to shrink. Deciding who has the capacity to make decisions based on brain age could have unintended consequences for the likes of Cass (64).  That aside, what would setting the age of true adulthood at 25 mean for everybody else? If we couldn’t allow people to consent to medical treatment at 24, should we ask them to risk dying for us? If not, then at a stroke we could lose a quarter of our armed forces. Likewise, we would have to give serious thought to what to do about a third of parents who might not be considered competent to look after their newborn children.  And then there are issues like contraception. Right-wingers have long contended, on one pretext or another, that teenage girls shouldn’t have the right to take the pill without their parents’ consent. This is where the review’s suggestion starts to look less like a double standard and more like the thin end of a very nasty wedge.