>Stonewall publicly backtracking on Cass Review and now fully endorsing itIt is completely over for UK trannys, but this affects all of us. There is now a very convincing sign that can be pointed to by anyone critical of trans medicine. What is our next move here?
stonewall is not a medical organization
>>35497090Time for me and my partner too get Brazilian estrogen siphoned from a boob
>>35497090Grassroots anarchistic organizing and also rebelling against doctors and the government
>>35497107transgenderism is not a medical conditionit is eugenics with a disguise on
>>35497182>transgenderismIt's over for you
>>35497090they'd probably lose their charity status otherwisewhat a time to be alive...
>>35497191you are part of a cultyour actions benefit others at your own expense
>>35497215I dunno, taking estrogen and being happy seems great
>>35497215>at your own expenseLike that other anon said, I am substantially happier than when I started.I also have a boyfriend now who loves me for who I am, a successful career in IT, and a healthy social life and hobbies.Actually, now that I think about it I'm probably too well adjusted to still be posting here.
>>35497276I'm not well adjusted but I have a long term partner, that seems like it makes it illegal for me too post here
>>35497090I mean did you see Singal's victory lap in The DispatchHe fully expects the AAP to go next
>>35497215My actions benefit me and my boyfriend. Seethe, repper.
Someone summarize the cass report for me
>>35497456>children might be gay and autistic and confused so we need to make them wait forever
>>35497456The summary is "We must never allow children to take puberty blockers ever, youngshits are a disease and should be forced to suffer the pain of desperately trying to reverse the permanent changes caused by puberty like everyone else"
>>35497481is it that hard for you to not sterilize gay and autistic children?
>>35497495How would you summarize the cass report?
>>35497090>stonewall ukI hate to be me of those anons who tries to rationalize everything, but to me it seems more like a PR move, Kind of like when companies change their Twitter pfp to the pride flags during gay month and brag about being a diverse workplace who accept others but not for their accounts that service certain countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, etc) Either way I’m sorry this is happening still :(
>>35497182Eugenics is a good thingThere is no such thing as an inherent right to reproductionForced sterilisation and abortion is a beautiful thing
>>35497250Why do transitioners always go out their way to say how happy they are? Every opportunity. It's like they're trying to convince themselves by repeating a mantra.
>>35497456Basically:>"There is no good evidence to support any aspect of the gender affirmation approach.">"No good evidence that puberty blockers are worth it.">"No good evidence that medical transition is worth it.">"No good evidence that social transition is worth it."
>>35497942gee chud, idkit's almost like u told them they were suffering and they offered evidence to refute that claimbut go off bro, why would a bunch of ppl who were suicidally depressed and then got better talk abt being happy?i guess it'll remain a mysteryyou retarded donkey nigger
>>35498014People who are happy don't insist they're happy every five minutes.
>>35498034>insist they're happy every few minutesmaybe in ur imagination retardif that's the best ur gonna do then u might as well just stop posting lmao
>>35498034>you're not happy>yeah I am>omg why do you always insist you're happy every 5 minutes clearly not that happy
>>35498040Exhibit A:>>35497250
>>35498049It's more that the "I'm happy! I'm happy!" is constantly offered up without anyone else prompting it as your greentext implies.
>>35498051u literally just showed me a person saying they were happy, and it was from a fucking hour agodo u ever get tired of looking retarded and making a fool of urself?
>>35497954Is it compelling? Do you agree with it?
>>35498064Yes. The Cass Report is the most rigorous and broad literature review ever performed.
>>35497954>No good evidence living is worth it
>>35498069and one of the only ones that hasn't been peer reviewed...?
>>35497107newest tranny cope>>35497954seems true to met. bi guy with AGP
>>35498074It's not going to be published in a journal. It's an NHS commissioned report. Similar to, say, the WPATH reports.
>>35498059oh really?>>35497215>at your own expense>nah dude I'm happypretty clearly was prompted
>>35498074The systematic reviews that inform the report are peer reviewed and published in the BMJ. The Cass Review itself is a health policy document, not a scientific paper, and so it doesn't need to be peer reviewed.
>>35498069Well that's ok, I kinda prefer being trans stays alt and weird it's too normy nowadays
>>35498134id prefer if being trans was a thing of the past, seen as a barbaric custom of yore like bloodletting
>>35498094and? that doesn't change the fact that not being peer reviewed puts it at a lower standard lmao if the cass report is right then why can't you give me a peer reviewed study reaching the same conclusions? >>35498104yes, the studies the report uses are peer reviewed, obviously. that is basic science. the report itself reaches different conclusions than the vast majority of those studies, and is not peer reviewedare you able to grasp why that is an issue?
>>35498139Hmmm
>>35498168An example of a peer reviewed study reaching some of the conclusions would be Carmichael et al 2021, one of the hundreds of peer reviewed studies discussed and analysed for the Cass Report.
>>35498168>not being peer reviewed puts it at a lower standardpeer review is a meme, THIS was peer reviewed
>>35498014>so happy i have a gamer word tantrum when someone’s says im not happy
>>35497942because you're always saying we're sad
>>35498059I've noticed this with people who got SRSthey always preface it with something like "I'm happy it was finally done but..." and then go on to explain about how it was botched, every time. Literal coping mechanism
>>35498218>some>hundredsso let me get this right, one study out of hundreds supports *some* of her conclusions, while the vast majority do not? do u rly expect me to be convinced by that>>35498225>science isn't realwonderful. >>35498227oh no u got it donkey nigger, I'm just a miserable seething trannyso what does that make the guy who spends his free time talking to me?
>>35498227>protest but not too much>respond courteously>speak about it only when spoken to Is this how you prove your happy or victorian boarding school etiquette lmao
>>35498168>the report itself reaches different conclusions than the vast majority of those studiesFor example?...
>>35498243>science isn't realstrawmeme>u got it donkey nigger, I'm just a miserable seething trannyyes>what does that make the guy who spends his free time talking to me?someone who delights in juvenalian schaudenfreude, or a good samaritan trying to lend you a helping hand, or both
>>35497481hopefully it will only be used to silence anglo trannies and europe and latin america will ignore it
>>35498243The whole point of the report is that it establishes answers to vast swathes of questions within transgender healthcare.It does this by considering the results from hundreds of peer reviewed studies.Each individual study will be considering a much more tightly defined, single question.For example, Carmichael is a peer-reviewed study which supports the Cass Report saying that puberty blockers do not improve mental health. It doesn't support the Cass Report saying that hormones have zero effect on height. For that, Cass references Loi-Koe et al, 2018, and Boogers et al, 2022. None of these peer-reviewed studies support the Cass Report saying that early use of puberty blockers makes vaginoplasty more difficult. For that, Cass uses Lee et al, 2023. And so on and so on.This is how the report works. It aggregates and summarises all the science on transgender healthcare in youths, and that science consists of peer reviewed studies which support one statement or other in the Cass Review.
>>35498271>juvenalian schadenfreude that's not a term you actual retardare you trying to refer to juvenalian satire?you realize that the concept of schadenfreude literally does not figure in here?jfc every time i talk to one of u chuds u start breaking out this flowery prose to try and sound educated or smth ig and u always fuck it up>>35498297>all the scienceexcept the 98 percent of peer reviewed studies it discarded. This is why even work which merely summarizes the state of a field is typically also peer reviewed, which u would know of u had any background in research or academia, or even the slightest insight into how these processes function. The choice to include a study and exclude another, to prioritize one set of findings over another, regardless of the author's justifications, is in and of itself a decision which ought to be (and again, typically *is*) subject to peer reviewthe fact that in the case of the cass review, it was not, is objectively a problem with the paper. especially given that it reaches such different conclusions than so many of the studies in the field, and especially when the author has chosen to exclude so much peer reviewed science. no amount of talking around the issue is going to change that
>>35498347>that's not a termyou're right, it's an adjective and a noun>except the 98 percent of peer reviewed studies yeah if she'd included all the studies on wanking to shotacon the report would've turned out much different
>>35498372>completely ignores me pointing out ur retardationbro just give up lol
>>35498347>98% of peer reviewed studies it discardedThis is false. I think this comes from the fact that, in the Taylor et al update to the NICE review, only 1 of the 50 studies into puberty blockers was found to be high quality. This has somehow morphed into the "98% of studies were discarded" myth being parroted by idiots since.I disagree that this kind of work is typically peer reviewed. Every single other equivalent report I can think of - none of them were peer reviewed.
>>35498379>every single other equivalent report i can think of - none of them were peer reviewed almost like u don't read real science?
>>35498377>I'm just a miserable seething tranny>schadenfreude literally does not figure in here:^)as for juvenalian, it's an adjective, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100027799 but of course you'd just do quick google search and your dunning-kruger would assume it's some kind of gotcha
>>35498394The Cass Report isn't a scientific paper. It's a review of the science in order to make recommendations on healthcare policy. It's similar, for example, to the reports from:>Council for Choices in Health Care in Finland, 2020>WPATH, 2022>Norwegian Directorate of Health, 2022>American Academy of Paediatrics, 2018>Royal Children's Hospital of Melbourne, 2018None of these reports were peer reviewed either, because their remit was not academic publication. I really don't think it's difficult to understand this. It's like demanding peer-review for a news article, and declaring it nonsense without. Peer review is just part of the process for publication in an academic journal, and none of these reports are written with that aim.
>>35498425the definition u mention literally says written in the style of the Roman poet Juclvenal who wrote sixteen verse satiresyou are so retarded it hurtsand again throwing around big words u don't understand are u a child? >>35498431>it's like demanding peer review for a news articlewell gee anon, if that news article was being billed as a comprehensive review and used to inform public policy decisions then yes, i would declare it nonsense without peer review>peer review is just part of the process for publication in an academic journalno, peer review is the process by which science corrects itself and discards faulty conclusions
>>35498509The point is that you're applying a completely inappropriate requirement for the medium. If you dismiss every such report (like those listed), every news article, everything anyone ever says, on the basis of lack of peer review, then you cannot believe anything at all. You declare nearly all of reality to be unknowable.It's just foolishness. Pointless existential wankery that's generally confined to depressed teenagers and philosophy undergrads.
stop trying to sterilize children
>>35498509>getting hung up on Juvenal being a poetthere's the dunning-kruger again
>>35498394Learn when to take the L
>>35498347>except the 98 percent of peer reviewed studies it discarded.look, if you haven't even read the report and all your opinions come from retard twitter trannys whose literal job it is to spin the narrative... probably you shouldn't even enter the conversation. you're actually just making everything so much fucking worse for all of us by being too incompetent to even do basic fact checking. trans activist try not to make normies hate us challenge, difficulty impossible
>>35498550>strawmanI'm not dismissing everything for lack of peer review, as per the criteria i gave i am actually applying that standard to quite a narrow subset of things.does it not strike you as a problem, that to continue to disagree with me you have to willfully misinterpret my words and then dismiss ur weird interpretation as existential wankery? if ur not even going to argue in good faith, then don't bother talking to me>>35498598>trans activisthello my fellow transgenders
>>35498608Well, which transgender healthcare policy reports would you accept? If the answer is "none of them, and I never will" then that's clearly a you-problem.
>>35498626yes anon, that's precisely the pointi do not believe a non peer reviewed report is useful as anything more than a resource to researchers. if it's not peer reviewed, it should not be a basis for public health policy. i think that's pretty fucking reasonable
>>35498659Then public health policy will be based on nothing at all. Every single corner of public health policy is based on commissioned reports like this, and not a single one of them is peer reviewed.You are advocating for a complete overhaul of the health system, without even arguing for an alternative. That's not reasonable in the slightest. You just seem like you haven't thought this through.
>>35498578omfg i have to believe this is bait at this pointthe poet part wasn't the significant part of that sentence, the satire part wasso u can't even use the term "getting hung up on" correctlyhow are u this stupid, genuinely
>>35498679no, then public health policy will be based on the decisions of experts in the relevant fields in keeping with current researchlike it usually fucking isagain, just willfully misinterpreting everything i say who are you even trying to convince at this point?
>>35498659not exactly sure what magical transformation you believe would take place if the document were to be published in a journal. because the paper isn't a scientific research article, it would be treated like an essay. there is no methodology to criticize because the paper is basically just a legal document that references systematic reviews that have already been peer reviewed. it's also weird of you to demand this because the implication is that literally every government report would have to be published in a scientific journal before you trust it which is retarded and wouldnt actually improve the integrity of these documents
>>35498703>Based on the decisions of expertsIt would be useful if we could have those expert views formally summarised and written down in a digestible way yes? Even better, if we commissioned a handful of those experts to study a specific topic in a dedicated way for several years, and then write a comprehensive review with recommendations for practice in the UK.Do you think that would be a good idea?
>>35497942Why do tourists like you constantly spam us with memes about how we're all suicidally depressed
>>35498723incorrect, cass used her own methodology in evaluating the quality of various studies. *that* is what needs to be subject to scrutiny from experts in the field, as i mentioned beforeare you being purposely obtuse? >the implication that literally every government report be published in a journalno, i think every document that is used as a basis for government policy ought to be subject to the scrutiny of outside experts. apparently you think that's crazy and doesn't already happen, for some reason?
>>35498687you just don't get it and likely never willthat's why I tried to brush over your initial idiocy, but you doubled downyou could read juvenal (or swift) and maybe get an inkling of an idea of what it actually means to be juvenalian, but I doubt you have the capacity for it
>>35498725not unless the work of those experts has been subjected to outside review, no.
>>35498739we know you aren't gonna actually kill yourselves, its just a ruse for attention and a way to manipulate others
>>35498754>Cass used her own methodology in evaluating the quality of various studies.This is false. I'm not sure where you got this idea from. You seem very poorly informed on the report. Have you read it?
>>35498761>trannies are mentally ill 41 percent lol>we know you'll never actually kill yourselves???
>>35498760What would you say is the difference between>Five experts working together to write the report and then two experts reviewing itand>Seven experts working together to write the report
>>35498769i have, have you? she literally outlines her system for gauging the quality of the studies. you fucking retard
>>35498772the two experts not being involved in the writing of the report is the difference, you moronif u think that's wrong then ur problem is with the scientific method, not me
>>35498773I have, and I must have missed this. I didn't see any bespoke quality evaluation methodology.
>>35498781And what exactly is the point of such a difference?For academic publication, the point is that the reviewers are independent from the research. In this case, everyone's independent anyway.
>>35498273Anywhere with a right-leaning or fundamentalist government will suffer for it, unfortunatelyIncluding places where the above is picking up steam
>>35498794i already answered this the methodology by which they judged the quality of the studies was not trivial and should be subject to review, if this document is to be the basis of public health policy
>>35498816transgender ideology is a grave threat to public health
>>35498816I don't think you have answered this. The methodology, approaches, and conclusions found in the Cass Report were agreed upon by 8 independently appointed experts in the field.Why is this not good enough in your eyes? What exactly do you think would be gained by having a 9th person who only contributes after the report is written?
>>35498853no, the methodology was *devised* by 8 experts*that* is why it should be subject to revieware you always this obtuse, or only when it comes to things you don't want to hear?
>>35498853>>35498816Of course, we both really know the answer. You don't legitimately have any grievances with the standard public health commission procedure. You just dislike its findings in this case, and are pretending that your upset is with the methodology rather than with the conclusions.
>>35498868u realize i already replied right? oh sorry, did i spoil the timing of ur cringe little gotcha post
>>35498863>The methodology was devised by 8 expertslolwat? This doesn't even make sense. Hilary Cass didn't invent the idea of reviewing scientific literature and drawing practical recommendations from it.All the report does is consider the scientific evidence and present what this shows. Every step of the way, every sentence in the report, is agreed by multiple independent experts. Do you really, seriously believe that adding a 9th expert would suddenly overturn any of it? I really think you're lying to yourself at this point.
cass's "methodology" is not found in the bible, need I say more?
>>35498890omg read the fucking thread you retardshe uses a specific methodology for evaluating the studies, and that methodology is what ought to be subject to peer review
>>35498225>when your research is less legitimate than THIS
>>35498918Why do you deem the review of this evaluation methodology by Faith Gibson or Michael Linney to be insufficient?
>>35498927gee idk anon, why does anyone ever want outside review for anything
>>35498955Answer the question, friend. What exactly is there to gain from adding a 9th expert after the report is written? I think there is no value in that.Peer review is vital in academic publishing because the whole setup is completely different. Lots of researchers produce lots of research, and the review process provides quality assurance.For public health reports, a panel of independent experts is specifically commissioned to agree upon statements based on the scientific evidence. Subsequent peer review is unnecessary because challenging of the methodology and so on happens constantly while the report is being written.
>>35498550Please reread what anon wrote rather than throw red herrings:>review billed as a comprehensive review used to inform public policyDocuments you outlines earlier seem to have been compiled by consortiums of individuals. The Cass review is verifiably independent by her own claims - she alone compiled the report.You'd have hoped that, for an advisory document that addresses an entire discipline of medicine, that carries so much weight it can upend such to immediate effect, that peers involved in the field would've had more direct input to the recommendations.
>>35499083If any of the approach, conclusions, or recommendations found in Cass were not justified, then peers would indeed have challenged it.
>>35498679Good. Then we can stop getting quackery like picrel.
>>35497090>UK puts out shoddy report full of holes and inconsistencies that blatantly worked from it's recommendations backwards>UK charities and trans campaigners criticise the review and point out it's bullshit>UK press call their criticism "misinformation" by nit-picking specific claims and saying the specific numbers given were wrong (whilst ignoring the meat of the longer criticisms provided)>UK charities and campaigners back down and give up. All they had to do to shut trannies up this whole time was lie twice in a row?
>>35499151The report isn't peer reviewed.>>35498890A hand picked advisory board that was 50% conversion therapists including the lead and explicitly refused including any trans people from the beginning.
>>35498918You seem confused. Cass didn't evaluate any of the studies. Independent researchers at The University of York did in their systematic reviews. By definition, she didn't have any say as to what scoring system they decided to use, and what you're asking for--that the wider scientific community decide what methodology to use--already happened.>>35499083>You'd have hoped that, for an advisory document that addresses an entire discipline of medicine, that carries so much weight it can upend such to immediate effect, that peers involved in the field would've had more direct input to the recommendations.That's literally what she did. Page 52 of the report under Professional Input:• Listening sessions with clinicans &other professionals• Focus groups with GIDS staff• Programme of thematic roundtables• Professional panel & online survey• Clinical Expert Group• Workshops & discussions with frontlinestaff, professional bodies, nationalorganisations & system leaders
>>35499164Could you give a specific, legitimate criticism of the report?>>35499176Correct. It's not peer reviewed. This doesn't mean that Cass just went away and did her own thing without any other experts challenging her.And then complaining about the board is silly. Real>Listen to the experts, no not those experts!energy
>>35499188>Correct. It's not peer reviewed. This doesn't mean that Cass just went away and did her own thing without any other experts challenging her.The only experts who could challenger her was her own hand picked board of people already sympathetic to conversion therapy. No other mechanisms existed. If you gave a trans person reaserch those terms, told her to do a review, then said the science was uncritizable because "she was held responsible to a board of experts" despite those experts being a bunch of other trans people and it not being put up for peer review, that would be obviously nonsense.
>>35499220Evidence your claim.
>>35499225https://web.archive.org/web/20210420111940/https://cass.independent-review.uk/about-the-review/governance/https://twitter.com/ValoisDuBins/status/1782663263609926006The review board was hand picked by cass, who also appointed a pro conversion therapy woman to make the methodology and specifically disincluded trans people from the start, imagine doing a review on abortion and ruling out women.
>>35499245>look at this tweetOh, friend. Trilby Langton isn't even listed in your first link, and then the tweet calls her the "the sole gender affirming care expert involved in the Cass systematic reviews" which is bizarre considering all the research she contributed to was done in collaboration with a number of other experts.And then the evidence that she is sympathetic to conversion therapy is that she.... met with the Equalities minister to discuss conversion therapy ban and.... gave a talk at CAN-SG.Friend this is weak.
>>35499289>gave a talk at CAN-SGhttps://can-sg.org/about-us/a group that specifically opposes hormone therapy for all ages and rebukes any and all legal rights of trans people.>all the research she contributed to was done in collaboration with a number of other expertsIf they were not in charge of the methodology nor had any input on it, then what difference did it make other experts were around.
>>35499306>https://can-sg.org/about-us/The website says:>The practice of prescribing hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones for gender dysphoria should be scientifically scrutinised, as there is currently no robust evidence that they improve long-term outcomes and increasing concern around harms.This is factually correct. We can't criticise someone for speaking at a conference where the website says something which is verifiably true.
>>35499319It also says>We believe the sexed categories of male and female encompass all expressions of gender, personality types and behaviours.Which is an open call to revoke any acknowledgement of trans people in society.And also then undoes the bit you said by saying>Clinicians should be able to consider a variety of appropriate therapeutic options.Which means they think conversion therapy should be acceptable.
>>35499326No it doesn't. There is nothing there at all saying conversion therapy is acceptable.
I did this to get pussy. There won't be any competition in the dating market when none of you even remotely pass, I'll mog you all!
>>35499385conversion therapy is everything that isn't affirm only no questions asked.
>>35499418Some people genuinely believe this
>>35499151Challenge it how? The document was written in a black box, the govt. took it and ran. Otherwise yes there's growing numbers of peers who aren't particularly happy.https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/>>35499179Knew someone would come out with that. What good does holding feedback sessions do when the singular person writing the report is biased with clear conflicts of interest. The report is a black box and we have no idea whether she seriously considered their input, neither who she considered in the first place.I'm so glad the review considered feedback and opinion from the likes of:Transgender Trend:https://www.transgendertrend.com/nhs-interim-clinical-policy-public-consultation-submission-guide/Sex Matters:https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Social-transition-in-schools-is-not-possible.pdfDo No Harm:https://donoharmmedicine.org/2023/06/14/do-no-harm-expert-testifies-at-congress/Random conservative/TERF blogs:https://mysticsisters.substack.com/p/esg-the-hidden-reason-why-so-manyhttps://ourduty.group/education/lifecycle-of-transgender-ideation/https://gcritical.org/introduction/?amp=1https://reduxx.info/trans-health-authority-cites-castration-fetish-site-in-guidelines/r/detrans (astroturfed to shit) (also cited as r/trans in the document)As can be seen in the consultation report:https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/psh-consultation-report-11-march-2024.docxAnd so glad that the review board consisted of no experts in the field:https://cass.independent-review.uk/about-the-review/assurance-group/
>>35499428>peers who aren't particularly happyBeing sad about something is irrelevant, if you cannot put forward any actually valid criticisms of what it says.
>>35499439It was very relevant for the report though. Plentiful feedback considered from "stakeholders" who simply aren't happy that trans people exist.>if you cannot put forward any actually valid criticisms of what it says.Glad you didn't bother exploring the links on that page to read their criticisms. Retard.
>>35499459I clicked on the first one:https://bagis.co.uk/And couldn't identify any proper criticism of the report. If any of the others are better, please do point them out and I'll happily give them a read.Or even better would be to try and form a strong criticism yourself. Then you can practice defending your own views rather than outsourcing them like this.
>>35497090>>35497954>refuse to follow the same strategy us fags used to incredible success>rely on medical consensus for validation, something us fags constantly warned against>have horrendous PR because CLEARLY the majority will never turn on you>medican consensus rugpulls you>AIEEEE WOE IS ME HOW CAN THIS BE HAPPENINGCongratulations, trannies, you've managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.Let's hope the backslide won't wipe out too many of our rights, but I'm not optimistic.
>>35499623it's a controversial medical issue, it was never going anywhere without overwhelming consensus from the medical community. i hate having to interact with retards who got conned into thinking that posting on twitter is trans activism.
>>35499470>I clicked on the first one... And couldn't identify any proper criticism of the report.Scroll down>Or even better would be to try and form a strong criticism yourself. Then you can practice defending your own views rather than outsourcing them like this.Sure, read the rest of my initial reply >>35499428
>>35499695What exactly in BAGIS's statement would you say constitutes the strongest criticism of the report's content?
>>35497942>did u kno that trannies are always sad?>"uh no we aren't?">omg why are trannies always telling everyone about how happy they areYour brain must just legitimately not work if you can't figure this out.
>>35497090Isn't UK Stonewall a TERF organization that got condemned by the real Stonewall charity organization?
>>35499844>The Real StonewallLet me guess. The real one is in the USA?
>>35499623I mean it's less the medical community itself rugpulled it, more the British government found if you simply do a medical review, appoint someone hostile to transpeople and specifically rule out including any of anyone with medical expertise or experience in the area, you can get evidence reviews that suggest there isn't enough evidence, which can then be turned into "so we should do more studies" in the conclusion, which is then turned into "the review said kill trannies" in the media.But otherwise yeah, this heavily relying on the vibe of medical evidence and giving uncaring psychologists who like inserting themselves into everything this much power was never that great of an idea.
>>35499871That is where the bar is, retard.Where the history happened.
>>35500087kekcalled it
Isn't a massive issue with the "discarding reports for not being high quality" that they were demanding standards that couldn't ethically be met like double blind surveys?How do you do a double blind survey for hormones or for fucking surgery?
>>35500042>No we cannot have transgender people or practitioners on the assurance board>That is a conflict of interest and could introduce bias>But yes we can appoint cis people who endorse transphobic organizations and viewpointsabsolute state
>>35500222That's the twitter myth, but it's not true.
>>35500245Why were they disregarded then
>>35500251They weren't. Some of the lowest quality studies were discarded by reviews which informed the report, and there are many reasons a study could be considered low quality. For example, non-standardised measurements.
>>35500264So they just came to a wrong conclusion even while taking into account the studies, impressive.
>>35500274They stated what the preponderance of evidence shows.
>>35500285Except it doesn't show that, they're just transphobic shills
>>35500264Why did they throw out 49 out of 50 studies on puberty blockers>>35499385Not them but they advocate for 'gender exploratory therapy' which is in itself a form of conversion therapyhttps://transsafety.network/posts/gosh-exploratory-therapy/
>>35500338>Why did they throw out 49 out of 50 studies on puberty blockersThey didn't. This is another of the twitter myths.
>>35500338>Not them but they advocate for 'gender exploratory therapy' which is in itself a form of conversion therapyIsn't "gender exploration" literally what transgender is?
>>35500367Why do you think they chose that name?
>>35500367Doesn't seem like it>In this training, Spiliadis and his colleagues Tilly Langton and Anna Hutchinson promoted their “Gender Exploratory” approach to gender dysphoria treatment. This encourages inserting delays into transition and trying to resist a patient’s preferences for changes of name or pronouns. At the end of the slide deck, trainees were encouraged to investigate a list of organisations that “offer different perspectives”, directing NHS CAMHS Psychiatry Trainees towards on the one hand, mainstream trans support charities Gendered Intelligence and Mermaids, but on the other hand, two conversion therapy advocacy groups (Genspect and Bayswater Support Group), and the anti-trans lobby group Transgender Trend, who also campaign against banning conversion therapy for trans people. Transgender Trend who have also been described as a hate group and accused of promoting school bullying of trans youth leading to warnings issued in the educational press.
>>35500405And while the plural of anecdote is not data I found this account of someone who went through GET that I recall reading a year or so ago. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1584116431255638016.htmlNot being trans I can only really go off what others say.
>>35497215What expense? Oh no my depression how could I leave it behind? Oh no my suicidal ideation how could I forget about you?Hating myself every second of the day? Why would I ever leave that behind? God damn cults I tells ya
>>35500439Look, depression and suicidal ideation are expected symptoms for being British. If you live in Britain you're SUPPOSED to hate yourself and everything. It's MEANT to be shit. You take it out on everyone else: the young, the old, Johnny foreigner. All of our history has been spent going places and ruining them.
>>35500484We were thriving when the Danelaw was at our doorstep, Brits need to feel the pressure of a looming invasion or we get stressed
>>35499688>it was never going anywhere without overwhelming consensus from the medical communityHow about focusing on public acceptance first and foremost?The gay side was (and still is) kinda fucked on the medical side, STDs are still a major problem and only slowly improving, but now that there's acceptance it's easier to tackle that issue.
>>35501244>>35501244.
>>35497215>you are part of a cult>your actions benefit others at your own expenseYou're thinking of right wing voters.
>>35499385yeah yeah, and the nazis never said on record that they were exterminating jews. they said they were evacuating them from germanytransition is effective in treating gender dysphoria, "a variety of appropriate therapeutic options" here means "ways of dealing with gender dysphoria besides transitioning, and transitioning"i wonder what those other ways of dealing with it might be?
>>35501553>The nazis never said they were exterminating Jews>Therefore, anyone who doesn't say they're practicing conversion therapy is practicing conversion therapyExcellent logic. Congratulations. I have no comeback.
>>35501567learn how euphemism works lol"conversion therapy" used to be the euphemism, then it got tons of bad press because people realized it was just a nice way of saying "torture someone until they stop being gay"so now they use new euphemisms like "a variety of appropriate therapeutic options"
>>35501587Or maybe it's not that deep. A variety of appropriate therapeutic options means what it says on the tin.
>>35501599yeah, a suggestion that trans people not transition and instead just talk about dysphoria with a therapist so that it goes away.that's what will happen, for sure. the trans people will talk to the therapists and realize it was all silly and go back to being normal, it certainly won't escalate to torture, when has the government ever worked with the medical establishment to torture undesirables until they behave?
>>35501637Undeniably, that would happen for some. For others, the dysphoria will go as seemingly unrelated issues such as eating disorders or depression are fixed.>it certainly won't escalate to tortureObviously. That's just a Daily Mail style slippery slope hysteria.
>>35501010you are literally trying to turn men into women, you're never ever going to be accepted by normies. your best bet is to win using science and based on that pass laws that will protect you from the people trying yo kill you.
>>35501662wow interesting, so you mean to tell me you don't believe there are actually transgender people and that 100% could be resolved without transition? what a shocking revelation, this is new information to me. that you believe that.but suppose for a moment that you're wrong, that just talking with a therapist doesn't work and that solving seemingly unrelated issues doesn't help. what next? are you fine with us transitioning in that case? after a few years of therapeutic treatments?
>>35501700>you don't believe there are actually transgender people and that 100% could be resolved without transitionWhy bother posting something like this? I didn't say anything like that, and you know I didn't.>Talking with a therapist doesn't work and that solving seemingly unrelated issues doesn't help. what next? are you fine with us transitioning in that case?A clearer example would be someone without any unrelated issues. In which case, transition could well be appropriate as the very first course of action.
>>35501739look anon i get that you're very dedicated to interpreting transphobic rhetoric in good faith, but it's not being written in good faith and it's easy to see. if it were the people pushing it wouldn't also spend all their time posting about trans rapists and trying to build hate.yes, it can be interpreted as you say. no, that's not what they mean. yes, that is the point.
>>35501846I don't think Cass has spent any time at all posting about trans rapists or trying to build hate...
>>35501874cass isn't the one person in the movement, she didn't act alone and she wasn't chosen randomly
>>35501891So when you said>the people pushing it wouldn't also spend all their time posting about trans rapists and trying to build hate.you didn't mean the lead behind this report... did you mean anyone who contributed to it?
>>35498757NTA but kek how do chuds always end up being bigger faggots than the trannies
>>35501904not anyone, several people, and not just who contributed to it, who called for it to be performed in the first place, who spread the propaganda it needed to be reviewed, and who spread the review to argue against trans healthcarethought that was pretty obvious when i said "the people pushing it" instead of "hillary cass"
>>35501930The other actions of people who support a document has no implications for the intention of the author behind the document. This is a particularly weak attempt at guilt by association.
>>35501977you can pretend to be retarded all you like, it doesn't change anything. the cass report is part of a movement that seeks to prevent transition and remove trans people from society, and everything it says must be interpreted in that context
>>35501993I just think you're being a bit conspiratorial. The Cass Report isn't part of any movement seeking to remove trans people from society. It's a public health review commissioned by NHS England. It is just like any other such review, and is much better understood under that context than as part of some sinister plot.
>>35502016>yeah just ignore the context and trust the conservative government led by someone who openly doesn't consider trans people's identities real when they say their health review is totally neutral
>>35502016>t. 77th
>>35502033I mean, how many health reviews do you think NHS England commissions? Is this the only one? And do you really think we could have gone forever without having a single comprehensive review of this topic?The Cass Report was inevitable. It's pointless to try and find sinister motives when, with or without those motives, the situation would play out the exact same way.
>>35502050>the situation would play out the exact same wayno it fucking wouldn't lolyou know that, i know that, fucking everyone knows that.
>>35502099What would be different? High quality evidence in support of puberty blockers isn't going to magically appear. It doesn't exist.
>>35502113same as the majority of medicine yeah
>>35497090Britain has fallen. Thousands must detransition.
>>35497942im literally chilling and i have boobs
>>35502170What?
>>35502188the majority of medical treatments aren't supported by high or moderate quality evidence
>>35502196Nonsense.
>>35502207copehttps://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(20)30777-0/abstract
>>35497090how exactly was it unclearthe systemic review is extremely clear about itit only needed to be clarified if you are complete retard that listens to retards on twitter grifting for their patreon
>>35502229This finds the majority of cochrane reviews don't contain high/moderate-quality evidence. It doesn't show that the majority of medical treatments aren't supported by high/moderate-quality evidence.
>>35502268the title literally refers to "the quality of evidence for medical interventions"the reviews are what medical treatments are based on, they are the evidence.are you always this obtuse or only when you're objectively wrong?
>>35502290>The majority of Cochrane reviews only find low-quality evidence>Medical treatments are based on reviews>Therefore the majority of medical treatments are based on low-quality evidenceThe third line doesn't follow from the first two. That's the issue.
>>35502323it does though, the reviews aren't specifically looking for low quality studies, the cochrane library isn't the one that does the studies.why would the cochrane reviews have a different distribution of evidence quality than the industry as a whole?
>>35502356>why would the cochrane reviews have a different distribution of evidence quality than the industry as a whole?This is a very easy to answer question. I think you can probably answer it yourself with not much thought.
>>35502382apparently not, so why don't you give your very easy and obvious answer
>>35502290>>35502323both of you are retards that can't readthe paper you are arguing about only looks at UPDATES to existing Cochrane reviewsthey found 608 existing reviews, and then 154 of them were updated, then 3 were discarded due to lack of dataof the 151 studies that WERE UPDATED and they had data 15 (9.9%) of them now have high quality evidencethat figure gives you ZERO information about how many Cochrane reviews in general have high quality evidence like you are claimingand the paper itself even suggests it shouldn't be used to make a general conclusion of the quality of evidence, like you are trying to do
>>35502460teehee, pranked
>>35502414Surprising. Have a think about what the motivation is for a Cochrane review, and what the motivation is for prescribing a medication.
>>35502503how would that influence the quality of evidence
>>35502540It doesn't. Think about how it might affect the distributions across the two data sets though.
>>35502598what do you think the motivation is for a cochrane review?cause i don't think it'd lead to them looking more at lower quality evidence, i'd say they look at a studies based on their topic
>>35502654>cause i don't think it'd lead to them looking more at lower quality evidenceNo? Would you say a Cochrane review is just as likely to be on a difficult or contentious topic, or on an already-settled one with substantial high-quality evidence? I've pretty well walked you to the answer at this point.
>>35502668>Would you say a Cochrane review is just as likely to be on a difficult or contentious topic, or on an already-settled one with substantial high-quality evidence?i'd think it's equally likely
>>35502687A cochrane review is more likely to address a topic for which the answer is not already well established.
>>35502724prove it, back that statement up with literally anything
>>35498227youre on 4chan you retarded faggot kys noone cares
>>35502724lol, can't find anything backing that up can you?maybe think about why you would assume something and argue as if it were the case instead of just checking
>>35497090I think it was rather predictable that UK would degenerate after leaving EU. Like it's a prime example of western country falling
