• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cass Report

In the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting next month, there is a session titled 'Comparison of Clinical Guidelines for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: What Is the Role of Systematic Evidence Reviews?' It is in the 'scientific sessions' on Sunday May 18th at 10.30 (the abstract can be found using search, no direct link available).

The abstract states: 'Researchers in Europe have conducted multiple separate systematic reviews of the evidence for hormonal interventions in pediatric-age patients with gender dysphoria. These systematic reviews have consistently found uncertain, inconclusive evidence.' It goes on to discuss how these findings have lead to the UK and several European countries shifting away from medical transition to a more psychosocial approach for addressing gender dysphoria in minors. It contrasts these guidelines with those used in the US, which are based on expert opinion and narrative description of study results, and acknowledges controversy in the area (contrary to frequent claims by activists that 'the science is settled').

Unfortunately this session is closed to the press. This is the only session I have noticed that is restricted in this way. I wonder if they are worried about activists trying to shut it down.

This suggests to me that some US institutions are realising they have to address this issue. A few years ago it would have been impossible to have a session addressing this.
 
d4m10n said:
Out of curiosity, has anyone here ever been in an RCT as a subject?
Click to expand...
Currently enrolled in 2 trials; one is fully blinded, the other I'm in a control group with no treatment because the treatment has obvious side effects.
 
Did America Just Get Its Own Cass Review?

www.broadview.news

Did America Just Get Its Own Cass Review?

HHS's report on youth gender medicine
www.broadview.news www.broadview.news

I haven't read the report yet, it's bound to be of lower quality than the Cass Report because it was written pursuant to Executive Order 14187 (which is inflammatory, partisan, and grounded in ideology rather than science) and also because it was written in great haste. Nevertheless, if you've read or even skimmed the Cass Report and happen to live in the United States, then you'll probably want to at least know about this one as well, because it purports to do an umbrella review of the top-down reviews from several other nations.

Prediction: It will be roundly condemned by major American medical societies before Mothers' Day rolls around.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
AFAIK, only the one has been published, and WPATH upset the researchers by trying to manipulate the content while demanding that they state the review is independent. There is a summary here.
Click to expand...
Wow, that summary is pretty damning.

IMO, these two statements really stand out:
  1. WPATH forced JHU to withdraw the manuscripts that were already submitted for publication as they did not meet the desired conclusions.
  2. WPATH instituted a new policy whereby WPATH would have to approve all future publications by JHU.
(numbering mine)

This is precisely the sort of anti-scientific conclusions-first thinking I'd expect to see condemned by skeptics in general and by https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ in particular, but alas, not so much.
 
d4m10n said:
Wow, that summary is pretty damning.

IMO, these two statements really stand out:
  1. WPATH forced JHU to withdraw the manuscripts that were already submitted for publication as they did not meet the desired conclusions.
  2. WPATH instituted a new policy whereby WPATH would have to approve all future publications by JHU.
(numbering mine)

This is precisely the sort of anti-scientific conclusions-first thinking I'd expect to see condemned by skeptics in general and by https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ in particular, but alas, not so much.
Click to expand...
We could email SBM and suggest they do a piece on it. It's possible they just aren't aware. ;)
 
A peer-reviewed critique has just been published

https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7

On a quick skim, it seems to focus on methodology to construct an argument that as it is not perfect it should not be relied upon.

However there are some interesting statements:

Furthermore, the coercive nature of access to puberty blockers potentially being contingent on consenting to participation in research is also of great ethical concern.
Click to expand...
Finally, and perhaps more fundamentally, evaluating the efficacy of GAC based on psychosocial well-being alone is misguided.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
It's not actually new; it's a published version of the Noone et al. critique which was discussed previously.
Click to expand...
There seemed to be a bit of celebration on social media that this would fatally damage the Cass report.

It's interesting to see the shift in arguments being used - it's just like reproductive medicine; it's just about bodily autonomy, rather than mental health and suicide.
 
Aber said:
There seemed to be a bit of celebration on social media that this would fatally damage the Cass report.

It's interesting to see the shift in arguments being used - it's just like reproductive medicine; it's just about bodily autonomy, rather than mental health and suicide.
Click to expand...
It's ironic because the reason claims about mental health and suicide are critically evaluated is because those are claims that activists have been making on the basis of shoddy research and using to push medical transition of minors. If it's not about that, are they going to stop making those claims?
 
The transwomen on the other forum I belong to frequently post on the Labour government thread to remind everyone that Starmer and Streeting are child murderers because they accepted the findings of the Cass report.

If there really are trans children who have committed suicide because of the temporary suspension of the use of puberty blockers whilst properly controlled scientific trials are prepared (and they've never posted a link to a single documented case) then IMO the responsibility lies entirely with whichever utterly irresponsible adult convinced a vulnerable, impressionable child that their life would not be worth living if they didn't get to pump powerful drugs with known side effects into their physically healthy bodies.
 
New Washington Post Op/Ed piece calls for more research, notes similar findings in US summary to Cass Report - free link. I agree with those on social media noting that them publishing something like this a few years ago would have been unthinkable. As I posted over in the trans thread - I think it will become clear to most people that intrinsically the best treatment for gender dysphoria is help with accepting the body they have, as 1) they can't change sex (& hence will not be treated as the sex they wish to mimic) nor 2) will gender identity ever supersede sex in importance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom