Yes, I know you "think" you've debunked the Cass Report, but the NHS has a lot more credibility than you do
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Age Is Acceptable To Identify As The Opposite Sex?
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
McBell
Admiral Obvious
*I* Did not debunk it.Yes, I know you "think" you've debunked the Cass Report, but the NHS has a lot more credibility than you do
It was debunked by others.
All I did was present the link to its debunking.
Interesting that you flat out refuse to present even the names of these "meta-studies" you hold so dear.
Let me guess, you already know they are not legit?
Well it's not worth my time to go past the Cass Report, I'll stick with that for now. And I will continue to say that the NHS has more credibility than your sources. Or are you contending that the entire NHS is "transphobic"?
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Wow can you name them?
Oops I forgot, asking that is "interrogation" My bad
And...my bad again. I just checked and the wonderful Cass report doesn't say anything about "outgrowing" anything much less out growing being transgender. Wait I guess that is your bad for claiming the Cass report said anything on this topic.
Cass has done enough to discredit her own report.So I'll stick with the meta-studies
And if your next move is to try to discredit the Cass Report, it was commissioned by the UK's NHS, it was four years in the making, anyone can read it, and it was conducted using the highest research standards.
Yup, your bad again.
As you know, the more technical term for "outgrowing" in this context is "desisting". And since I know that you're debating in good faith, I know that you'll go back thru the Cass report and read all of the sections that talk about desisting so that you'll be better informed.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yes, sometimes doctors don't follow procedures. Ever hear of a candyman doctor?
Attacking practice because of noncompliant clinicians is about as lame as it gets when it comes to criticizing a medical procedure.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Is she the one who claims she pioneered gender affirming care? That alone is an obvious lie because she's not over 100 years old amd wasn't around when it was being pioneered.
In good faith...
Your comment is out of context. Go back a few posts to the causal chain that includes WPATH. WPATH have been the leaders of GAC, they are not just "some clinicians".
No, and no. Again, the context is about the GAC protocol that was developed by the Dutch around 2011. The reason that that is the context is because it's this so-called "Dutch protocol", or the minor variations established by WPATH that are the overwhelmingly predominant protocols used for GD for the last 13 years or so. So when we talk about GAC, we're talking about the Dutch protocol. We're not talking about how doctors dealt with transsexuals decades ago.
Since you care about this, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the Cass Report and the WPATH files. And I'm sure that because you care, you will do your own homework, and not rely on activists' reviews of these documents.
Bruh! You're the one running away with your tail between your legs; I invite you to call out anything I say that you disagree with.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Wait...Well it's not worth my time to go past the Cass Report, I'll stick with that for now. And I will continue to say that the NHS has more credibility than your sources. Or are you contending that the entire NHS is "transphobic"?
Is your claimed "meta-study" the CASS Report?
Is that why you refuse to flat out name it?
I haven't refused anything, let's try to debate in good faith, shall we?
But to answer your question, yes, let's start with the Cass report...
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Well that sounds like fun! Let's do just that
First we need the Cass report....Here
And lets look up Desisting...hmmm. Doesn't seem to be much there.
Cass uses a study from the 1980's yes the 80's.
Green, R., Roberts, C. W., Williams, K., Goodman, M., & Mixon, A. (1987). Specific cross-gender behaviour in boyhood and later homosexual orientation.
says that boys with effeminate traits (i.e. playing with dolls) were more likely to identify as cisgender males with same sex-attraction as adults. THE study only used a small number of reports provided by parents and no children were ever directly observed or interviewed. But the thing that really sells this as a legitimate study on transgender youth (something Cass is ever so passionate about) is that none of the children being reported on by parents had ever identified or been identified as transgender.
The Review itself favorably cites research proposing methods that claim to suppress transgender identity in children. So she is claiming that desisting is a common thing while at the same time acknowledging that transgenderism is just suppressed.
Zucker, K. J. (1985). Cross-gender-identified children.
She uses Steensma, T. D., McGuire, J. K., Kreukels, B. P., Beekman, A. J., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2013). Factors associated with desistence and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: a quantitative follow-up study. But skipped the part where the researchers said "true cross-gender identification—being a different gender rather than acting like a different gender—is one of the predictors of persistence of gender identity into adulthood."
One thing I found in this mess of a report was that Cass regularly states her opposition to so-called conversion therapy, yet insists that conversion therapy be part of any work with trans youth that she herself does. “In my view, offering treatment (conversion therapy) to a child, either on his or her own or through parental
consent, can be justified for a relatively simple reason. Cross gender identification constitutes a potentially problematic developmental condition. Taken to its extreme, the outcome appears to be transsexualism."
The Review itself favorably cites literature proposing methods that claim to suppress transgender identity in children. So she is claiming that desisting is a common thing while at the same time acknowledging that transgenderism is just suppressed.
Hey that WAS fun.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
That would be a very long post
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Except to name your "meta-studies"...
It had to be pried out of you.
So much for your claims of "Good Faith"...
Been there, done that.
If the debunked CASS Report and the "WPATH Files" nonsense is all you got...
Not sure how you missed the first discussion of desisting in the report? Page 41:
Then the next discussion on page 158, then on page 182 and so on...
Really? You're acting as if this is the first time we've discussed this topic? Is your memory poor? We've talked about the Cass Report before, no prying was ever necessary.
And again, you can claim "debunked, debunked" all day long, it doesn't improve your credibility, which again, if far, far lower than the NHS's.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Didn't miss it. It's a completely unsupported and unreferenced claim. Literally nothing there to back it up
Also unsupported and with no reference.
and more of the same
Oh i did miss one. and it was good for a laugh.
TD Steensma Factors associated with desistence and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: a quantitative follow-up study
Found that "Intensity of early GD appears to be an important predictor of persistence of GD." and we find that the author defines intensity as the child's desire or lack thereof to transition AND if the child actually identifies as being of the opposite gender verses parental identification. SO what Cass is saying is kids that do not themselves identify as trans don't remain trans. ROTFL
@Argentbear - Again, your criticisms were not shared by the NHS.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
That doesn't change the fact that the Cass report is a joke@Argentbear - Again, your criticisms were not shared by the NHS.
Or that the report makes claims that it doesn't support.
Or that is uses 40 year old studies
Or that the studies used don't include trans youth
Or that the report itself opposes so called "conversion therapy" but Cass herself inflicts this sick and abusive therapy on the trans kids.
and it doesn't change the fact that you can't actually counter anything I've posted instead relying on an appeal to authority with questionable political motivations.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
And one more thing on the Cass report:
On 31 July 2024 the British Medical Association, publicly called for a halt on the Cass review's implementation while it conducted an evaluation of the report. The BMA's council voted in favor of a motion to "publicly critique the Cass Review" due to "unsubstantiated recommendations driven by unexplained study protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, and exclusion of trans-affirming evidence". The BMA criticised the related ban on puberty blockers, arguing this wasn't a decision for politicians to make, while calling for more research.
and
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health followed the BMA viewing the report as a "backwards step", Criticizing the reports content and methodology and criticized the NHS for delaying care that already has "unacceptable waiting times".
AND
The American Academy of Pediatrics criticized the report for its questionable methodologies "We reaffirming our support for gender-affirming care for minors" and that our current policies supporting such treatments are "grounded in evidence and science"
and
The Canadian Pediatric Society rejected the report "Current evidence shows puberty blockers to be safe when used appropriately, and they remain an option to be considered within a wider view of the patient's mental and psychosocial health."
and
Amnesty International criticized "sensationalised coverage" of the review. "This review is being weaponised by people who revel in spreading disinformation and myths about healthcare for trans young people.
On 31 July 2024 the British Medical Association, publicly called for a halt on the Cass review's implementation while it conducted an evaluation of the report. The BMA's council voted in favor of a motion to "publicly critique the Cass Review" due to "unsubstantiated recommendations driven by unexplained study protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, and exclusion of trans-affirming evidence". The BMA criticised the related ban on puberty blockers, arguing this wasn't a decision for politicians to make, while calling for more research.
and
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health followed the BMA viewing the report as a "backwards step", Criticizing the reports content and methodology and criticized the NHS for delaying care that already has "unacceptable waiting times".
AND
The American Academy of Pediatrics criticized the report for its questionable methodologies "We reaffirming our support for gender-affirming care for minors" and that our current policies supporting such treatments are "grounded in evidence and science"
and
The Canadian Pediatric Society rejected the report "Current evidence shows puberty blockers to be safe when used appropriately, and they remain an option to be considered within a wider view of the patient's mental and psychosocial health."
and
Amnesty International criticized "sensationalised coverage" of the review. "This review is being weaponised by people who revel in spreading disinformation and myths about healthcare for trans young people.