A flood of false claims about England’s Cass Review has coursed across social media and the press and among activists and academics. If only they had actually read it.
Thanks to everyone who read my article! Follow me on Substack if you like. I don't publish on there too often, so you won't get hit with a ton of emails or anything. I also tweet a lot about this issue: https://twitter.com/benryanwriter
I keep trying to convince my fellow red pillers of all stripes to stop thinking this is a reasoned debate. The other side has already rejected reason. Get that. The Left/Postmodernism starts by undermining the entire concept of something called 'truth'. Owen Jones is a great example of a feral, left wing loonie liar who simply doesn't care about facts or reason. He's just about power and 'winning' and feeling superior based on his politics. But the likes of WPATH and others give him 'ammo' to fire his lies out into the mouths of his supplicants who care even less about truth. None of them even suspect they are wrong. The only way they will be stopped is if we remove them from power. It may already be too late as they've done so much damage from which there is no recovery. Brace yourself for the coming new Dark Age...
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can
"consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
Transgenderism owes its remarkable ability to survive evidence based criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.
Benjamin I have your problem in certain professions contexts, I am the one who reads every page with notes before commencing certain functions. I routinely find that people try to short-cut reading, and it ends up creating 7x - 10x the effort to undo faulty comprehension and rework a program.
You would enjoy the CMMI model for how to develop responses to problems. An ounce of preparation is worth a ton of rework.
Oooh, this is one of my favorite things I have read here, thanks.
Owen Jones is an awe and a wonder, isn't he? I generally don't like to denigrate people who disagree with me, but OJ is *awfully* disagreeable. I see why Julie Bindel calls him "Talcum X."
If we take Cass' critics claims at face value, that researchers and doctors motivated by ideological reasons can skew results by determining which studies count and which don't, then we must also conclude both:
1. Researchers and doctors who like the affirming model for ideological reasons can do the same, and there's no reason to take their evidence at face value either,
and
2. The people actually DOING the research could do the same, and even the basic truth and validity of studies themselves have to be called into question.
In other words, if they make it an ideological power game, then we have to assume everything they say is also ideologically motivated for power, and if we go back to a basic eye test, historical, and first principles analysis withouts specific data on this narrow subject, I think we all know where that leads.
Thank you Mr. Ryan, for this careful and rigorous fact checking effort! The backlash from activists is to be expected, and it is unfortunate that so many people follow their lead in situations that require critical thinking and sound reasoning rather than emotionally driven arguments.
I have not yet read the entire Cass Review, but intend to do so "when I have the time." The summary published by the SEGM is very helpful as a substitute. I have brought it to the attention of physicians I know and they have been open to the information and appreciated receiving it.
One thing I have noticed in the criticisms of the Cass Review is a misunderstanding of what is meant by a randomized controlled trial. Critics of the Review often mention that it is impossible or unethical to "double blind" the research design, which they seem to think rules out the use of RCT's in studies of "gender" treatment. This isn't accurate. "Double blinding" means that neither the participants in the trial nor the people who deliver the treatments know which treatment any given participant is receiving. This is often possible to do if the treatment is a drug with no side effects, so that one group of participants receives the active drug and another group receives an inert pill that looks the same. There are many, many situations in which double blinding is not possible to do, as in cancer studies where one group gets radiation and another chemotherapy. Everyone in those studies knows which participants are getting which treatment from the start of the study. These studies are still randomized and controlled.
Random assignment is a necessary first step in studies that use statistical analyses of results. The reason for doing this is that we want the groups of participants be as equivalent as possible at the start of the trial with respect to whatever variables we are measuring at the end. An example of non random assignment is when groups of patients with low back pain are treated either with surgery or conservative care, then evaluated at the end of treatment for degree of improvement in symptoms. In observational studies, the patients are usually sorted by their treating physicians who have reasons for assigning the patients to a more or less invasive type of treatment. If the conservative care group comes out with better results than the surgery group it might be because they were in better shape than the surgery group to begin with.
Another part of an RCT research design is that treatment groups are compared to carefully selected "control groups," which might consist of no treatment or of "treatment as usual." Much of the research on "gender treatment" has been appropriately criticized for not including well chosen control groups. One example of a well controlled study of suicidality related specifically to gender conflicts would be to compare three groups of adolescent psychiatric patients who receive only a course of psychotherapy: one group diagnosed only with "gender distress," a second group with gender dysphoria and three other comorbid condiitons, and a third group with only the latter three conditions without gender dysphoria.
The gender care industry is nothing but pure unadulterated evil that wears a white coat. They are chasing the all mighty dollar as they mutilate children I can think of nothing that is as evil as this is.
Well done, Benjamin! The biggest problem is that the critics of the Cass Report have not read it, and in many cases will refuse to do so. They have their minds made up and do not wish to be confused by facts.
Given the quasi-religious nature of gender-ideology one would not expect an assemblage of rational evidence-based material linked to the actual - "real world" - to in any way impact those ideological blinders and beliefs. If a human being with a penis and testes "wishes on a star" that he magically morph into a woman - voila! - he simply becomes one - end of "gender-ideology" story. : /
Thanks to everyone who read my article! Follow me on Substack if you like. I don't publish on there too often, so you won't get hit with a ton of emails or anything. I also tweet a lot about this issue: https://twitter.com/benryanwriter
I keep trying to convince my fellow red pillers of all stripes to stop thinking this is a reasoned debate. The other side has already rejected reason. Get that. The Left/Postmodernism starts by undermining the entire concept of something called 'truth'. Owen Jones is a great example of a feral, left wing loonie liar who simply doesn't care about facts or reason. He's just about power and 'winning' and feeling superior based on his politics. But the likes of WPATH and others give him 'ammo' to fire his lies out into the mouths of his supplicants who care even less about truth. None of them even suspect they are wrong. The only way they will be stopped is if we remove them from power. It may already be too late as they've done so much damage from which there is no recovery. Brace yourself for the coming new Dark Age...
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can
"consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
Wow, this is great. Thanks for such a thorough piece.
Transgenderism owes its remarkable ability to survive evidence based criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.
Benjamin I have your problem in certain professions contexts, I am the one who reads every page with notes before commencing certain functions. I routinely find that people try to short-cut reading, and it ends up creating 7x - 10x the effort to undo faulty comprehension and rework a program.
You would enjoy the CMMI model for how to develop responses to problems. An ounce of preparation is worth a ton of rework.
Nice piece. Monkeypox?
Thank you, very helpful! Especially since I haven't made it past page 100 of the report yet.
Oooh, this is one of my favorite things I have read here, thanks.
Owen Jones is an awe and a wonder, isn't he? I generally don't like to denigrate people who disagree with me, but OJ is *awfully* disagreeable. I see why Julie Bindel calls him "Talcum X."
If we take Cass' critics claims at face value, that researchers and doctors motivated by ideological reasons can skew results by determining which studies count and which don't, then we must also conclude both:
1. Researchers and doctors who like the affirming model for ideological reasons can do the same, and there's no reason to take their evidence at face value either,
and
2. The people actually DOING the research could do the same, and even the basic truth and validity of studies themselves have to be called into question.
In other words, if they make it an ideological power game, then we have to assume everything they say is also ideologically motivated for power, and if we go back to a basic eye test, historical, and first principles analysis withouts specific data on this narrow subject, I think we all know where that leads.
Thank you Mr. Ryan, for this careful and rigorous fact checking effort! The backlash from activists is to be expected, and it is unfortunate that so many people follow their lead in situations that require critical thinking and sound reasoning rather than emotionally driven arguments.
I have not yet read the entire Cass Review, but intend to do so "when I have the time." The summary published by the SEGM is very helpful as a substitute. I have brought it to the attention of physicians I know and they have been open to the information and appreciated receiving it.
One thing I have noticed in the criticisms of the Cass Review is a misunderstanding of what is meant by a randomized controlled trial. Critics of the Review often mention that it is impossible or unethical to "double blind" the research design, which they seem to think rules out the use of RCT's in studies of "gender" treatment. This isn't accurate. "Double blinding" means that neither the participants in the trial nor the people who deliver the treatments know which treatment any given participant is receiving. This is often possible to do if the treatment is a drug with no side effects, so that one group of participants receives the active drug and another group receives an inert pill that looks the same. There are many, many situations in which double blinding is not possible to do, as in cancer studies where one group gets radiation and another chemotherapy. Everyone in those studies knows which participants are getting which treatment from the start of the study. These studies are still randomized and controlled.
Random assignment is a necessary first step in studies that use statistical analyses of results. The reason for doing this is that we want the groups of participants be as equivalent as possible at the start of the trial with respect to whatever variables we are measuring at the end. An example of non random assignment is when groups of patients with low back pain are treated either with surgery or conservative care, then evaluated at the end of treatment for degree of improvement in symptoms. In observational studies, the patients are usually sorted by their treating physicians who have reasons for assigning the patients to a more or less invasive type of treatment. If the conservative care group comes out with better results than the surgery group it might be because they were in better shape than the surgery group to begin with.
Another part of an RCT research design is that treatment groups are compared to carefully selected "control groups," which might consist of no treatment or of "treatment as usual." Much of the research on "gender treatment" has been appropriately criticized for not including well chosen control groups. One example of a well controlled study of suicidality related specifically to gender conflicts would be to compare three groups of adolescent psychiatric patients who receive only a course of psychotherapy: one group diagnosed only with "gender distress," a second group with gender dysphoria and three other comorbid condiitons, and a third group with only the latter three conditions without gender dysphoria.
> The Canadian Broadcast Company
They'll jump on the tinniest mistake Colin so that should be 'Broadcasting' not 'Broadcast'.
The gender care industry is nothing but pure unadulterated evil that wears a white coat. They are chasing the all mighty dollar as they mutilate children I can think of nothing that is as evil as this is.
Well done, Benjamin! The biggest problem is that the critics of the Cass Report have not read it, and in many cases will refuse to do so. They have their minds made up and do not wish to be confused by facts.
Great to see you at Reality's Last Stand!
Could someone please explain this KiteTrust nonsense that is on X this morning?
Given the quasi-religious nature of gender-ideology one would not expect an assemblage of rational evidence-based material linked to the actual - "real world" - to in any way impact those ideological blinders and beliefs. If a human being with a penis and testes "wishes on a star" that he magically morph into a woman - voila! - he simply becomes one - end of "gender-ideology" story. : /