Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Transgender hate crimes recorded by police go up 81%

Cal isa brilliant writer on this subject and understands the academic and clinicla evidence very well
I found it useful to understand the subtle but so often used
This section below really stood out for me because this is the same dynamic that operates to sympathetically frame transphobia in the media

'
These statements provide insight into the Cass Review’s positionality. Cass Review commentary positions non-affirmative approaches as “neutral,” contrasting them to affirmative approaches that are framed as “ideological.” There is no recognition of the ideology underpinning approaches that deny the existence or validity of trans children. Cass Review reports do not consider the harms of approaches that deny or reject a trans child’s identity (Horton, Citation2022c). Instead, Cass Review reports provide a sympathetic description of non-affirming professionals, centering the pressure they feel under to adopt an affirmative approach:

Primary and secondary care staff have told us that they feel under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach. [Report 5, p. 17]
Cass reports frame an expectation of trans positivity as an infringement on professional freedom, centering professional fears of being labeled transphobic.
 
From what I've heard it was because they're patients hadn't given consent to be used as part of a research project so they didn't hand over info on ethical grounds. Which makes sense but in a way is a shame, because if these thousands of patients are still registered with their GIC it means it's likely they haven't detransitioned. Handy for Cass though, in the near total absence of actual victims of this supposed medical scandal she can just claim they must be out there somewhere.

Interesting thread on this from Stephen Whittle:



It seems the data request was an attempt to match up former GIDS patients with those who had gone through the process of obtaining a Gender Rceognition Certificate (GRC) as adults as a way of evidencing 'sucessful treatment', presumably meaning those who didn't would be viewed as having detransitioned or whose treatment was unsuccessful.

And yet they've made it such a nightmare to get a GRC that very few bother, especially younger people who may not have the necessary evidence of bills in their name etc. It's an obvious stitch up and understandable why clinics refused to share patient data without consent. Now it looks like they are going to be forced to.

And now it looks like they are coming for healthcare for those over 25 as well.
 
And yet they've made it such a nightmare to get a GRC that very few bother, especially younger people who may not have the necessary evidence of bills in their name etc.
And plenty more people are perfectly happy and successfully living their lives during/post transition without one.

I'm not even sure what the point of a GRC is. I look it up every time it comes up and apparently the answer is so irrelevant to my life that I immediately forget again every time.

The idea that GRC numbers have anything to do with clinical outcomes is totally batshit.
 
Interesting thread on this from Stephen Whittle:



It seems the data request was an attempt to match up former GIDS patients with those who had gone through the process of obtaining a Gender Rceognition Certificate (GRC) as adults as a way of evidencing 'sucessful treatment', presumably meaning those who didn't would be viewed as having detransitioned or whose treatment was unsuccessful.

And yet they've made it such a nightmare to get a GRC that very few bother, especially younger people who may not have the necessary evidence of bills in their name etc. It's an obvious stitch up and understandable why clinics refused to share patient data without consent. Now it looks like they are going to be forced to.

And now it looks like they are coming for healthcare for those over 25 as well.

and having a GRC has nothing to do with having a correct NHS number

infact having the correct NHS number is part of the evidence required to be submitted to get a GRC

Cass has in fact admitted to a breach of the law around data protection and patient identifiable data and as such in a just world would be facing the MPTS for this
 
Last edited:
And plenty more people are perfectly happy and successfully living their lives during/post transition without one.

I'm not even sure what the point of a GRC is. I look it up every time it comes up and apparently the answer is so irrelevant to my life that I immediately forget again every time.

The idea that GRC numbers have anything to do with clinical outcomes is totally batshit.

It's difficult to know whether Cass actually understands this but is so ideologically committed she doesn't care, or whether those involved in the review, who we know are opposed to trans healthcare, have influenced some of these decisions. But taking her at face value, then these types of problems would have been unlikely if she'd allowed any actual trans people to be involved with the report
 
It's difficult to know whether Cass actually understands this but is so ideologically committed she doesn't care, or whether those involved in the review, who we know are opposed to trans healthcare, have influenced some of these decisions. But taking her at face value, then these types of problems would have been unlikely if she'd allowed any actual trans people to be involved with the report
I doubt she's ideologically committed, but the government wanted a report that would support their election strategy (they're straight out of the traps trying to make it so). She'll have come under pressure to ensure she maintained "balance", and later this year she'll get a damehood.
 
I doubt she's ideologically committed,

I'm not so sure. I've only skim read it so far but it's full of gender critical talking points presented with almost no criticism, including some of the more far out shit like kids are being transed by the internet or are becoming trans because they might get picked on if they came out as gay. It's unlikely she's come up with this stuff off the top of her head and given the complete lack of any published evidence for any of it the only place it's likely to have come from is gender critical groups and individuals.

It's also notable that GC groups seem to have been given an embargoed copy of the report in advance whereas it seems trans supportive groups weren't.
 
Hello from down here in NZ.

Good statement from PATHA here about why Cass sucks: PATHA - Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa - Cass Review out of step with high-quality care provided in Aotearoa

Also notable that Dame Cass has immediately gone on to warn about the conversion therapy ban: Hilary Cass warns Kemi Badenoch over risks of conversion practices ban | Gender | The Guardian

This matters because lots of countries, including Aotearoa New Zealand, have banned Conversion Therapy without the "risks" coming true. What it has meant is a lot of the pray away the gay stopped, and it's quack medicinal equivalents too.

Britain, it's media and establishment, seem to have a real problem with trans people and their rights. Other countries have banned conversion therapy, it works. But you can't use those examples, you have to listen to the Dame who just wrote a pretty bad review.

It was the same with the Gender self-ID legislation. Theresa May (!) promised it as a simple regulatory change in 2017, and it has already been in place for over a decade on many other countries.

But not Britain. Westminster even prevented Scotland using their legitimate authority to introduce the legislation, because of the "risks" which the GC lobby and the right wing continually yell about - but never use evidence from where legislation like it exists, without incident, in other countries.

A small, sad, fading country that's deciding to deal with it's failures by ignoring the world and going after minority rights - yeah, that's Britain right now.

Looking at it this way, with treef being a dude the UK just isn't a safe place for our family ever to return to permanently (not that we were planning to) but even visiting begs some serious questions.

The UK govt has started work on listing nations with gender self-ID laws because they don't wish to extend those rights to their own people, or for immigrants or returning citizens to use their entirely legal documentation of their transition or gender identity.

It's amazing how fucking toxic the debate is over there, how it's been presented and how sad it is that the closure of GIDS and the devolving of services was welcome by trans folks and parents - only for service provision to be effectively shutting on them, and their dangerous waitlist of 5000 being shunted onto the even bigger waiting list for mental health support.

That Labour are fully behind Cass, and haven't at all listened to criticisms, even that wetwipe Streeting saying he regrets saying trans women are women trans men are men, get over it (which is the equality act and the law folks) means things ain't getting better with a changed government.

In short any progress made from the 90's to the 2010's is now being very deliberately halted and reversed. I've heard it be called the modern section 28 and they're not wrong, except it's not the whole community, it's just trans people.

Puberty blockers won't be used for gender affirming care because there's not enough evidence and concerns about their effects. They will still be used to treat precocious puberty, to halt it until the young person is ready.

So what's dangerous for trans kids is safe for cis kids? Yeah, that's real normal.

There's the other bit of this too. This all kicked off because of Bell v Tavistock, which got overturned because the NHS made no error in law.

The lawyer in that case is the virulently anti-abortion lawyer Paul Conrathe, who wants to target Gillick Competence that allows young people access to contraception and abortion by informed consent.

When Bell was overturned he said Gillick was not fit for purpose. He's now representing a case against the Care Quality Commission for authorising private gender clinics, trying to get all hormone therapy for trans kids revoked on the same grounds - that they can't consent. These are the clinics that basically did the job the very underresourced NHS could have been doing. They want them shut down.

Given Cass has said the NHS should very very reluctantly prescribe them for 16+ who are judged competent under Gillick, even stretching out that reluctance until they are 25 (so denying legal adults the ability to choose their care) how long do you think the Cass precedent is going to turn up in a case saying young people don't have informed consent about abortion and contraception?

This has never just been about trans kids, or trans people. It's always been about how young people make choices about their lives and bodies which a very, very dangerously resourced and insane group of people want to remove.

A lot of the Lgbtqi community have been yelling about this for YEARS but have been mostly ignored because the British media and it's cheerleaders have tried to make this discussion about whether trans people are dangerous, and they've been given free reign.

It's fucking disgusting.
 
I'm not so sure. I've only skim read it so far but it's full of gender critical talking points presented with almost no criticism, including some of the more far out shit like kids are being transed by the internet or are becoming trans because they might get picked on if they came out as gay. It's unlikely she's come up with this stuff off the top of her head and given the complete lack of any published evidence for any of it the only place it's likely to have come from is gender critical groups and individuals.

It's also notable that GC groups seem to have been given an embargoed copy of the report in advance whereas it seems trans supportive groups weren't.
trans supportive groups were given advanced copies, but like the NHS bodies given copies they did not leak to the media before the embargo expired
 
There are bullies on both sides of this and its pretty clear which side is doing the best at shutting down objective discussion on the subject
‘This isn’t how good scientific debate happens’: academics on culture of fear in gender medicine research

Yeah that'd be the side cheering the disregarding almost the entire body of research because they weren't double blind studies. Ignoring that a study of that type isn't ethical in paediatric care of this type.

Here's a cartoon to explain why a double blind study for puberty blockers is ethically very bad:

a6becc2c-ffcc-4c5f-82d5-51b2a5d868c1.jpg

Oh but they quote a YouTube channel who've had the Gays against Groomers guy on, to support their findings? Very scientific, incredible standards of evidence.

2bcbf44a-4ae8-4532-b226-32ef9c16b028.jpg
f8022a41-8cbb-48f8-a37a-2498c5bac507.jpg

When you dig into the review the more you find, the worse it is.

Did you know that of 3306 patients who went to GIDS, only 27% were referred for puberty blockers or hormone treatment.

That's after 6 appointments with GIDS. Hardly a massive prescription programme there, if 73% of patients never got to endocrinology.

Oh and of the 892 who did go to the endocrinologist, less than 10 chose to detransition. That's 1.92%. if you count it out of the 3306 patients the clinic saw in total that's 0.3%.

Don't believe me? It's here in the report itself.

f03b4d8f-9160-4d0f-b2ac-ce5477295d36.jpg

So in FOUR YEARS and EIGHT MONTHS of patient data, they found less than 10 patients detransitioned out of 892 referred for endocrinology, 73% of patients were not referred and so never went onto puberty blockers or hormone treatment.

But the clinic is now closed and the treatment pathway is suspended. GIDS couldn't handle the patient load, but when they saw patients it wasn't a prescription free for all, there wasn't an automatic referral to endocrinology.

If you read the coverage it makes it seem like the consequence of 27% of young gender questioning people getting puberty blockers and then going onto hormones is a bad thing. It also makes it seem like there's an even balance between trans and detransition. The statistics in the damn report show that to be fundamentally untrue.

So 98.08% of patients referred to endocrinology were trans and were getting the healthcare they needed. And remember that group were 27% of 3306 patients, so 73% or 2204 patients were assessed as not requiring endocrinology at all.

Consider than GIDS had seen 9000 patients in total between 2009 and 2020. At 27% that would be around 2430 referred to endocrinology in that time. About 211 per year over 11 years.

The big concern about the gender identity clinics were that they couldn't cope with numbers. The issue about safety was the harm and risk the long waiting list would have on gender questioning youth.

That this has turned into taking away the treatment pathways that worked for 27% of them cannot be seen as a decision that's backed by the evidence the report contains, especially if you consider how the report dismissed so much research under extremely dubious grounds.

Tl: dr - Russ, eat a bag of wet sand and go for a swim. Consider yourself silenced by the trans lobby you nobber.
 
Last edited:
There are bullies on both sides of this and its pretty clear which side is doing the best at shutting down objective discussion on the subject
‘This isn’t how good scientific debate happens’: academics on culture of fear in gender medicine research
Yes the All Powerful Trans Lobby is doing so well at shutting down people who disagree with them that they've achieved none of their objectives (and in fact have had previous victories rolled back), been monstered across every major media outlet for years on end, have been targeted by the ruling party with the leadership of the opposition pledging to do exactly the same, had the main social media platform they'd been using to put their point across bought out by a transphobe who then deisgnated "cis" as a hate word, failed to even shut up Glinner despite him being completely off the wall, saw a massive rise in hate crimes against trans people, couldn't get a concrete pledge to stop conversion therapy ffs ...

... wait what were we talking about?
 
Last edited:
...disregarding almost the entire body of research because they weren't double blind studies. Ignoring that a study of that type isn't ethical in paediatric care of this type.
I don't think this is an accurate description of the review in question.
 
I don't think this is an accurate description of the review in question.
I don't think you've justified your assertion. I can call you a liar and a bounder (not that I am), but generally people might ask why I think that.
 
I don't think you've justified your assertion. I can call you a liar and a bounder (not that I am), but generally people might ask why I think that.

Methods Systematic review and narrative synthesis. Database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science) were performed in April 2022, with results assessed independently by two reviewers. An adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Cohort Studies was used to assess study quality. Moderate- and high-quality studies were synthesised.

Results 12 cohort, 9 cross-sectional and 32 pre–post studies were included (n=53). One cohort study was high-quality. Other studies were moderate (n=33) and low-quality (n=19). Synthesis of high and moderate-quality studies showed consistent evidence demonstrating induction of puberty, although with varying feminising/masculinising effects. There was limited evidence regarding gender dysphoria, body satisfaction, psychosocial and cognitive outcomes, and fertility. Evidence from mainly pre–post studies with 12-month follow-up showed improvements in psychological outcomes. Inconsistent results were observed for height/growth, bone health and cardiometabolic effects. Most studies included adolescents who received puberty suppression, making it difficult to determine the effects of hormones alone.
 
I am baffled at why/how the public discourse on this issue has become so toxic, and resulted in a massive intensification of prejudice towards trans people.
Can’t find the tweet, but someone on Xitter recently pointed out that Coronation Street had a major character in it for 16 years, from 1998 to 2013, called Hayley Cropper, who happened to be a trans womans (though played by a cis woman). She wasn’t tragic and fucked up any more than other soap characters, which LGBT characters are often presented as. (though she was killed off, it wasn’t anything to do with her gender - her death was hotly debated in public discourse but only because it was part of a euthanasia talking point).
The media, and audiences, were broadly supportive, and she was a popular character.
Imagine the fuss if they introduced such a character now?

I also remember being told, in a Music GCSE lesson about how
Wendy Carlos used to be Walter Carlos, to general acceptance/indifference from my fellow classmates who didn’t seem to think it was such a big deal.
 
Last edited:

'Not listened to'​

Sean Donovan was 14 when he knew he had gender dysphoria, external, but was not able to access puberty blockers which he said could have saved him "so much trauma".
Over the past four years he has been involved in the focus groups for the review, but said: "I was actually surprised at how much of the discussions we had didn't seem to translate into [the report].”
Now 19, Mr Donovan from Caerphilly said: "It took a lot of time and energy to share in that experience, and then it's kind of come out, and that's not being fully listened to."
When reading it, he said there was "positive stuff" such as trans children being supported with their transition, which is "contrary to the school guidance".
But he said there was a lot he "didn't resonate with at all".
Mr Donovan said the report “pushed too hard” on mental health.
“It makes trans children out to be these traumatised kids when that’s not the case at all. Some of the time it is, but not for all.”
 
I don't think this is an accurate description of the review in question.

Ok, but that was a top line reason given for straight up discarding dozens of studies by Dame Hilary Cass in favour of saying that there wasn't enough evidence. Evidence which multiple non-British assessments have not discarded, which is why it's so notable.

Screenshot_20240414_013854.jpg

I believe there have also been some longer term studies published in the last few years, which were also not included in the report.

Screenshot_20240414_013932.jpg

It is a developing research field, but to disregard what research there is by setting a standard other care pathways would not meet if subjected to similar standards is curious to say the least.
 

Here's where they set their line at 2022 meaning anything published since then doesn't count towards the study, but that there is further study and research available some of which supports the findings of other studies (which were discarded).

Some of the issues stem from there being small groups of people going through endocrinology treatment, and their reference to pre and post studies is because as Cass says herself that's how you do something where you can't blind a study.

Like I say, it's a developing field, but to pretend it's a field with nothing in it is a curious decisions.

Screenshot_20240414_021631.jpg
 
I don't think this is an accurate description of the review in question.

In the body of this review it is acknowledged recent studies not featured in the review confirm that there is "moderate-quality evidence that hormone treatment may improve psychological health" (examples below of the included studies).

Psychological health​

Five studies (one cohort,76 two pre–post48 74 and two cross-sectional50 51) measured psychological health. In four studies, participants had received hormones for ~12 months at follow-up. One cross-sectional study did not report treatment duration.50 Reported outcomes were depression (n=4), anxiety (n=3), suicide and/or self-harm (n=4), need for specialist-level psychiatric treatment for different mental health difficulties (n=1) and internalising and externalising symptoms (n=1) (online supplemental table S5).
Studies found a reduction in depression and anxiety at follow-up (cohort76) and for birth-registered females receiving hormones compared with females not receiving hormones (cross-sectional51), but levels were higher when compared with adolescents not experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence (cohort76). Lower treatment needs for depression and anxiety were reported after treatment in a pre–post study.74 A cross-sectional study reported lower levels of depression in adolescents who had received hormones compared with those who had wanted hormones but had not received them.50
A pre–post study found no changes in treatment need for conduct problems, psychotic symptoms/psychosis, substance abuse, autism spectrum condition, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or eating disorders,74 but two pre–post studies found a reduction in treatment needs for (or lower levels of) suicidality/self-harm.48 74 Two cross-sectional studies found conflicting results: those receiving hormones were less likely to have seriously considered/attempted suicide compared with adolescents not receiving hormones,50 and in birth-registered females there was no difference between groups.51
One cohort study reported a significant decrease in total psychological difficulties and scores for hyperactivity, emotional and conduct problems, with fewer participants in borderline and abnormal ranges at follow-up.76 Compared with adolescents not experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence, psychological difficulties were higher at baseline but similar at follow-up.


By the time they get to the conclusion they say there is "suggestive evidence from mainly pre–post studies that hormone treatment may improve psychological health" and by the time it gets to the Cass Review press release this becomes "of the 53 studies included in the review on the use of masculising and feminising hormones, only 1 was of sufficiently high quality, with little or inconsistent evidence on key outcomes, such as body satisfaction, psychosocial and cognitive outcomes, fertility, bone health and cardiametabolic effects".

So even based on the studies they did include there is still no acknowledgement that the evidence points to an improvement in psychological health anywhere in the Cass Review's summary and recommendations. In other words they ignored the evidence.
 
Sorry I'll just put one more thing in here and then I'm done.

The York review had Tilly Langton on the team. They're also known as Trilby Langton which is amusing given she's chosen her name, but social transition is bad eh 😁😁😁

Tilly Langton is part of a Gender Exploratory Therapy group, alongside some pro-conversion therapy folks. That is not a neutral position. No conflict of interest was registered on the York review at all.

No trans people, or equivalent providers, had a similar role in the review or the Cass Report: NHS Trust uses "Gender Exploratory" training materials promoting conversion therapy lobbyists

That was raised in this briefing: https://transactual.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/TransActual-Briefing-on-Cass-Review.pdf

Screenshot_20240414_024909.jpg
A few 🤔🤔🤔 in there, especially around international evidence being disregarded.

Oh, one final note here. Buy ending puberty blocker prescription, and is the NHS restrict hormone prescriptions - that locks every trans woman out of a whole range of sports forever.

A lot of the guidelines that don't outright ban trans women allow them access if they have not gone through male puberty.

There's no way for them to do that now and that means trans women out of a range of sports entirely, enforced by the NHS.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom