Almost two dozen researchers at a top medical journal have published a scathing scientific takedown of the Cass Review. Experts found that the NHS-issued report—a non-peer reviewed publication authored by Dr. Hillary Cass, a pediatrician without clinical or research experience with trans patients—was marred by “unexplained protocol deviations,” “methodological flaws,” and “unsubstantiated claims.”
Published on May 10 in BMC Medical Research Methodology, the report identified critical flaws in the study. The Cass Review led to a ban on puberty blockers targeting trans children in the UK. However, puberty blockers remain readily available to cisgender children, who may need them for conditions like precocious puberty.
“These issues significantly undermine the validity of the Cass Review’s recommendations, such that the Review fails to fulfil its aims as commissioned and should not be used as the basis for policy making,” the researchers said in a statement to Erin in the Morning.
The Cass Review has been rejected by countless medical organizations across the globe which oversee aspects of trans health care—including the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the Endocrine Society, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, to name just a few.
Nonetheless, it continues to act as the vanguard for anti-trans lawmakers and leaders grasping at straws for a scientific basis to further an extremist political agenda. In addition to being the basis of the UK’s puberty blocker ban, conservative Supreme Court Justice Alito cited the Cass Review in oral arguments for United States v. Skrmetti, the ongoing court battle over the constitutionality of anti-trans health care laws in Tennessee. It also lends credence to anti-trans conversion therapy practices, which it repackages as “exploratory” therapy. The Review could be used as a pseudoscientific building block to wall off any and all sorts of trans-affirming care for children and adults down the line.
This was said at the time by a lot of people with expertise, but was ignored by those who supported the conclusion of the Cass Report.
No shit. The Cass review is scientifically illiterate and written by people who have no experience with transgender issues. (No, toerags harping on about how women don’t feel safe in toilets isn’t experience in transgender issues)
The latest Supreme Court ruling on Scotland’s legislation regarding gender issues was similarly lacking in any proper inclusion of trans voices. Seems to be a theme. Of course the fact that JK was all over it’s outcome like some kind of Mafia Boss is all you need to know.
This was said at the time because it was obvious. When you exclude medical professionals with experience of gender affirming care from the panel of experts tasked with leading the Cass Review, on the basis that it’s done to avoid bias, while failing to acknowledge the risk of bias posed by only including non-experts.
It now looks like they started with a pre-determined conclusion and worked back the way to justify it.
“However, puberty blockers remain readily available to cisgender children, who may need them for conditions like precocious puberty.”
One is a medical expert deciding you need it, another is the child deciding they need it. It’s not helping trans rights by making bs comparisons like this. It’s the same level of intellectual rigour as the anti-trans mob.
This was reported at the time of publication. Yet frothy bigots used it as a stick to beat the Trans community down. Those attacks have only increased since the Supreme Court ruling a few weeks ago.
Literally every day, this relentless propaganda.
It’s not a great journal. Low – okay impact factor but also open access (I.e. you pay to publish) which is a big red flag. I don’t think you can really call it landmark.
Water is wet.
If only people were screaming from the rooftops about this when it was published; oh wait they were. And no trans folk were consulted.
Anyway im sure glad we didnt induct anyone into the house of lords for such shoddy work…
The Cass Review isn’t even worthy of being used as toilet paper after a hangover shite.
12 comments
Almost two dozen researchers at a top medical journal have published a scathing scientific takedown of the Cass Review. Experts found that the NHS-issued report—a non-peer reviewed publication authored by Dr. Hillary Cass, a pediatrician without clinical or research experience with trans patients—was marred by “unexplained protocol deviations,” “methodological flaws,” and “unsubstantiated claims.”
Published on May 10 in BMC Medical Research Methodology, the report identified critical flaws in the study. The Cass Review led to a ban on puberty blockers targeting trans children in the UK. However, puberty blockers remain readily available to cisgender children, who may need them for conditions like precocious puberty.
“These issues significantly undermine the validity of the Cass Review’s recommendations, such that the Review fails to fulfil its aims as commissioned and should not be used as the basis for policy making,” the researchers said in a statement to Erin in the Morning.
The Cass Review has been rejected by countless medical organizations across the globe which oversee aspects of trans health care—including the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the Endocrine Society, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, to name just a few.
Nonetheless, it continues to act as the vanguard for anti-trans lawmakers and leaders grasping at straws for a scientific basis to further an extremist political agenda. In addition to being the basis of the UK’s puberty blocker ban, conservative Supreme Court Justice Alito cited the Cass Review in oral arguments for United States v. Skrmetti, the ongoing court battle over the constitutionality of anti-trans health care laws in Tennessee. It also lends credence to anti-trans conversion therapy practices, which it repackages as “exploratory” therapy. The Review could be used as a pseudoscientific building block to wall off any and all sorts of trans-affirming care for children and adults down the line.
This was said at the time by a lot of people with expertise, but was ignored by those who supported the conclusion of the Cass Report.
No shit. The Cass review is scientifically illiterate and written by people who have no experience with transgender issues. (No, toerags harping on about how women don’t feel safe in toilets isn’t experience in transgender issues)
The latest Supreme Court ruling on Scotland’s legislation regarding gender issues was similarly lacking in any proper inclusion of trans voices. Seems to be a theme. Of course the fact that JK was all over it’s outcome like some kind of Mafia Boss is all you need to know.
This was said at the time because it was obvious. When you exclude medical professionals with experience of gender affirming care from the panel of experts tasked with leading the Cass Review, on the basis that it’s done to avoid bias, while failing to acknowledge the risk of bias posed by only including non-experts.
It now looks like they started with a pre-determined conclusion and worked back the way to justify it.
“However, puberty blockers remain readily available to cisgender children, who may need them for conditions like precocious puberty.”
One is a medical expert deciding you need it, another is the child deciding they need it. It’s not helping trans rights by making bs comparisons like this. It’s the same level of intellectual rigour as the anti-trans mob.
This was reported at the time of publication. Yet frothy bigots used it as a stick to beat the Trans community down. Those attacks have only increased since the Supreme Court ruling a few weeks ago.
Literally every day, this relentless propaganda.
It’s not a great journal. Low – okay impact factor but also open access (I.e. you pay to publish) which is a big red flag. I don’t think you can really call it landmark.
Water is wet.
If only people were screaming from the rooftops about this when it was published; oh wait they were. And no trans folk were consulted.
Anyway im sure glad we didnt induct anyone into the house of lords for such shoddy work…
The Cass Review isn’t even worthy of being used as toilet paper after a hangover shite.
Comments are closed.