Roe v Wade

[passinginterest]

I think with respect, that's a bit of a news dump without any real context. Is there any particular comments in it which sum it up or which you feel give perspective?

A quick skim of that article suggests to me it's quite biased - for example puberty blockers are described as "previously-uncontroversial" - but that's not the case. Concerns have been raised about them before (David Bell for example), and Cass says they were effectively never properly tested. That in itself is hugely controversial (just the activists pushing this agenda never revealed that part...) The article repeats the myth that regret rates are 1% - but Cass says the data behind this is woefully inadequate. There's other examples too in there I think.

Bottom line - you can't dismiss a report which raises huge concerns in the area of trans ideology as "anti-trans" ("If the Cass review was held under a black light, we would see the fingerprints of anti-trans ideology"). If it's the case that an ideology is nonsense, then calling that nonsense out is what we need. And the suggestion that "young people [...] will, understandably, feel betrayed", with no real basis at all, is quite disgusting in light of what Cass says the dangers of the current ideology are.

So while I'm not sure what exact points you think should be taken from the article, I don't see it adds any sense of perspective.

I think it's important to note that there's still other perspectives. Both the article I've posted and the one you posted are opinion pieces so are inherently biased. I'm not strongly on either side. I think it's regressive to going back to dismissing all trans identifying kids as just confused or suffering from some other psychological issues. It's interesting to note that Bell could be interpreted as taking a very conservative view of trans identifying people (to the point of his views being seen as anti-trans by the alternative article). For me, the big take away from Cass is that there's huge gaps in knowledge around trans care, the biggest issues are delays in accessing the wrap around supports needed. The numbers involved in puberty blockers are relatively small, but that seems to be the aspect a lot of commentary is caught up in. I don't think the report is even fully against them, it's more that long term studies are needed. The report on transition regret is dismissed, but again, there isn't a lot of alternative research out there, more is needed either way.

I think the pronoun argument in general is vastly over egged. I've seen a former colleague transition and speak regularly about the experience. They felt that things like using pronouns on email signatures made it easier for them and that seems to be the case. While I don't have pronouns on my email, it's not something I'd dismiss. If it helps people with trans or non-binary identities to be more comfortable then why not, it actually has no impact on me personally, it's a couple of extra words in the email signature. Can be handy dealing with unusual names too.

Similarly the whole identifying as cats etc. thing. It's a combination of far right scare mongering and kids seeing how far that they can push boundaries (and no doubt some of the trans and non-binary kids are doing similar, but within that there's a cohort of genuinely trans young people who need proper care). Scaremongering around "oh what will they be identifying as next" just strikes me as diluting the real issues. I think trans rights in general are not a million miles away from where gay rights were in the 1980s, there's a lot of fear and misinformation, let's not forget identifying as homosexual was still being treated as a phycological disorder and illegal in the very recent past. Trans identifying people seem to have existed throughout history, much like homosexuality, we just seem to be that bit further behind in terms of care, rights and understanding.

I hope the science and the understanding can advance without the debate becoming ever more polarised. It's always good to hear different views, and the science and care absolutely needs to find a happy medium with the more extreme elements of advocacy. Anyway, maybe that's a bit rambling, but I don't think it's a cut and dried, black and white argument either way. There's potentially bias in the Cass report, but it's very useful, broadens the debate and will hopefully lead to more and better studies and evidence across the full spectrum of approaches to trans identity.

[pineapple stu]

I think it's important to note that there's still other perspectives. Both the article I've posted and the one you posted are opinion pieces so are inherently biased.

I agree there's other perspectives. I don't agree the article I posted is inherently biased. It's by a professional psychologist in this area who investigated the area and ultimately was one of the first to try lift the lid on some of the things that were happening - misdiagnoses, bullying of people who queried the standard line, and so on. I don't see how he's biased? You mightn't like his views, but that's not the same as bias.

I do believe the article you posted was biased, because it repeats the standard myths and makes no attempt to really engage in the science of the matter. (Or maybe it does - you didn't point to any particularly relevant part, and I didn't see any)

The report on regret isn't dismissed - it's considered inadequate by any professional standards. There's a huge difference.

On Cass (and WPATH), the real takeaway is that groups of activists were going ahead with dangerous treatments with no medical basis whatsoever. You can spin that as "It's more that long-term studies are needed" but it's really not the same thing. It's beyond disgraceful that activists were pushing these sort of treatments with no clinical basis whatsoever, and they can't now come back and say "Yay - Cass is a win for us because we'll get research into this area"

Cass (and Bell) aren't anti-trans btw, and I don't know why you've used that phrase as often as you have. They are saying that proper treatment starts with removnig the activists from the scene, looking at the facts behind some of the more dangerous myths (around regret and detransitioning), looking at co-morbidities that could be the real issue to be treated rather than trans (particularly relevant in the suicide rate - simply transitioning doesn't seem to reduce suicide rates, because you're not treating the real issue, which is depression/autism/some other similar mental issue). It's really important that professionals diagnose these issues correctly.

And being gay and being trans can't really be equated. The latter is saying you're a different gender to what you identify as, in the face of all available evidence. It's simply not true, yet people are acting on it - men in women's sports, men in women's changing rooms, people being mistreated in hospital because doses for some medicines vary by sex. Now, you can feel quite strongly that you are female even if you're male, but I don't see why that isn't a mental issue, and I don't think anyone has shown otherwise to be honest. But there's definite neuroscientific proof of homosexual sexual attraction. It is real.

I don't think anyone mentioned identifying as cats? Bit of a strawman there I feel. I'm also uncomfortable with the modern trend of dismissing views as far-right (or far-left) and thinking that's a cogent argument of itself. Everyone seems to think people who hold different views to them are far right these days.