The Cass Report must have been a real eye opener for you.
You should read "An Evidence-Based Critique of “The Cass Review” on Gender-affirming Care for
Adolescent Gender Dysphoria"
This is what it says about the Cass Report.
In 2020, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) commissioned an inquiry to provide recommendations for the healthcare of transgender adolescents. This process was overseen by a pediatrician named Dr. Hillary Cass and reached completion in April 2024. The
final product is a 388-page report called the “Cass Review,” and is accompanied by seven systematic reviews conducted by authors affiliated with the University of York.
Unfortunately, the Review repeatedly misuses data and violates its own evidentiary standards by resting many conclusions
on speculation. Many of its statements and the conduct of the York SRs reveal profound misunderstandings of the evidence base and the clinical issues at hand. The Review also subverts widely accepted processes for development of clinical recommendations and repeats spurious,
debunked claims about transgender identity and gender dysphoria. These errors conflict with well-established norms of clinical research and evidence-based healthcare. Further, these errors raise serious concern about the scientific integrity of critical elements of the report’s process
and recommendations.
In the short time since its release, the Review has been used to justify restrictions on healthcare for transgender youth. In March 2024, the NHS announced that it would deny puberty-pausing medications to those under age 18 outside of a research setting. In June 2024, the NHS Health
Secretary cited the Review as the rationale for emergency regulations that criminalize the supply of puberty-pausing medications to new patients under 18 in England, Scotland, or Wales.5
This ban, which applies only to the treatment of gender dysphoria, labeled these medications as a “serious danger to health.” These medications remain freely available for other pediatric health needs, of which precocious puberty, endometriosis, and fertility preservation prior to chemotherapy are some.
We produced this report to emphasize the Review’s key tenets, to bring the critical yet buried findings to the forefront, and to provide evidence-informed critiques where merited. The transparency and expertise of our group starkly contrast with the Review’s authors.
Most of the Review’s known contributors have neither research nor clinical experience in transgender healthcare. The Review incorrectly assumes that clinicians who provide and conduct research in transgender healthcare are biased. Expertise is not considered bias in any other realm of science or medicine, and it should not be here. Further, many of the Review’s authors’ identities are unknown. Transparency and trustworthiness go hand-in-hand, but many of the Review’s authors cannot be vetted for ideological and intellectual conflicts of interest.
