I'm concerned that the response to this report in Canada and the US will be to double down on affirmative care. It will probably take detransitioner lawsuits to rock the boat here.
"The refusal by all but one adult gender clinic to cooperate in the outcome analysis for the 9000 patients as part of the Cass Review likely contributed to NHSE’s determination to investigate the adult service."
It seems that there is no requirement to participate (that can be enforced, anyway). Is this broad refusal due to captured workers who have no desire to participate in what occurs to them as a threat?
Great news. I’m most of the way through listening to Hannah Barnes’ excellent Time to Think, so this is very interesting news.
I want to hopeful that this will translate to the US, but it seems doubtful that the AAP will undertake a clear eyed review of the evidence. What is your outlook or level of optimism about a shift like this in the US in the next 5 years or so?
Anybody who has not yet read the letter from the Directors of Specialized Commissioning of the NHS to the directors of their gender clinics should do so. My favorite part was the marvelously British set of sentences at the end:
"In terms of immediate next steps and actions, we would ask the following:
• that you support discussions at Board level and with your adult GDCs on the findings
and recommendations set out in the final Cass Review report and their relevance to
the adult service.
• you prepare your adult GDCs to fully participate with the data linkage study and avoid
the need for mandatory direction in this respect. Further details will be communicated
<sigh> I wonder how long it will be before the U.S. & Canada finally come on board. Unfortunately, we may be stuck with our transbot Prime Minister for at least another year ;(
> Ehrensaft was also a notable figure in promoting the now-defunct theory of repressed memory of satanic abuse
Citation Needed! And no, the link in that paragraph does NOT support this claim.
I can only find any involvment from Ehrensaft in ONE satanic case, and it really DID involve an occult group, and I can't find ANY mention of "repressed memories" in relation to that case. I urge you to read this short LA Times report on that case (including the bit about the room painted black):
Thank you so much for this important summation, I have a much clearer understanding of the issue from a clinicians point of view, not just my own (ok I was right) pragmatism.
Imagine if we had a review which concluded that teenage girls who identified as 'downtrodden, objectified, exploited victims of toxic male oppression' should NOT be affirmed in their identity, and instead should be helped to realise that actually men have spent the last few centuries working themselves to the bone in all weathers and in all kinds of horrendous environments to provide resources and protection to women, and that men have been engaged in a 5000 year project to make women's lives more and more comfortable and safe (and fun).
While ALL identities should be questioned, I would argue that a trans identity is more likely to have some validity than a feminist identity. With hormone levels all over the place, and a world full of environmental toxins, we should expect all kinds of state of dis-ease and discomfort - especially in the youth who have been exposed to our current environment since birth. But to identify as 'oppressed by men' goes against all common sense, objective facts and lived experiences.
Will we ever live to see a day when a feminist identity is allowed to be openly questioned or challenged in mainstream society?
Will we ever live to see a day when organisations which affirm such an identity (schools, universities, libraries, governments, UN Women etc) are condemned for enabling such a traumatising and debilitating identity? (and one which drives a wedge of fear, hatred and mistrust between the sexes).
Feminism is not an identity equivalent to “trans”. Feminism is a political movement that has historically been vital and somewhat successful. Its current (major) form is off the rails. But the core issues of ending male violence against women and girls and ending the sexual exploitation of women and girls are still laudable. Three women are murdered every week in the U.K. by a male partner. Only the gods know how many globally. Sex trafficking is rife worldwide. These are not trivial problems and the feminism that addresses them is still needed. Privileged women complaining about being oppressed when they don’t get the corner office in their top tier law firm should be ignored.
" Feminism is a political movement that has historically been vital and somewhat successful."
But there was never a time when men oppressed women. To identify as a feminist is a delusion, and one which is hateful to men and disempowering to women. What has empowered women over the past few centuries has been technology, most of which has been invented, built and maintained by men. Take men out of the equation and we'll all be back to the middle ages within a month.
Have you ever heard a feminist complain that women are not 'allowed' to work as plumbers, roofers, electricians, lorry drivers, deep sea divers or garbage collectors? No, because feminists are only interested in being CEOs, lawyers, academics and journalists. And they expect men to supply the electricity, running water, transport and infrastructure that allows them to have these lifestyles. Feminists have accepted men's sacrifices and gifts to women and then spat in men's faces in return.
" Its current (major) form is off the rails."
Feminism has always been off the rails. Men have always been women's greatest allies, not women's enemies. No feminist can name one period in history when it was preferable for women to swap roles with men of equivalent social status. So how can men have oppressed women? It makes no sense.
If men had looked after the children and stayed at home while their wives mined the coal, fished the oceans in wooden boats and built roads by hand nobody would argue that women got the better deal. Even today, stay at home husbands who are financially looked after by their wives are rare, and tend to be regarded as parasites.
Take any period in history including the present..... what is the arrangement that would NOT count as oppression? Feminists cannot say. Feminism is therefore a theory which cannot be falsified. That makes it a delusion, a demented ranting, an exploitative lie, a form of psychological torture and bullying of men.
" Three women are murdered every week in the U.K. by a male partner."
How does this prove women are systemically oppressed by men? Do you know any man who claims murdering women is OK? Has the law ever permitted men to murder women at any point in history?
Wherever women come to harm, or are perceived as being harmed, everybody expresses concern and outrage and pours resources into helping women. When Boko Harem kidnapped a bunch of school girls the entire planet launched a campaign to save them. Not one person even THOUGHT to ask what happened to the boys (they were all murdered on the spot). If you want examples of INSTITUTIONAL/ SYSTEMIC sexism and lack of concern just look to men and boys. From genital mutilation to rape to child custody... society does not care about men and boys. Society only cares about women and girls.
If feminism was actually true, everything in society would be the opposite of our current reality. The world feminists describe is literally the opposite of the world we have.
I think you’re getting carried away. But to your point: women not being able to own property, not being able to vote, not being allowed into many jobs that they are perfectly able to do; not, in fact, being in charge of their own lives. That is oppressive. Your narrative goes far too far the other way “everything was always great for women they should stop complaining!” is ahistorical nonsense. From our current standpoint in some cases yes, “feminism” is pretty toxic, but 100 years ago? Come on. It’s only because of feminism that you can say women have it pretty good now.
It isn’t the job of feminists to advocate for men and boys, and I don’t like the binary nature of that position, because I agree men and boys are vulnerable too. You want to advocate for men and boys you do that, but why fall into the same trap you claim feminists have? You don’t need to denigrate feminists to do that, in the same way they don’t need to denigrate men to do their advocacy.
How is holding feminists to the most basic standards of evidence and reason 'getting carried away'? Are you suggesting feminists should be beyond criticism?
"But to your point: women not being able to own property, not being able to vote, not being allowed into many jobs that they are perfectly able to do; not, in fact, being in charge of their own lives. That is oppressive."
Firstly, all of these things applied to men too. I think you are getting your 'history' from feminists and not fact checking to see if they are lying (they are).
Secondly, you are defining 'jobs' as a privilege and a lifestyle option. This is how feminists view work, but it is not how work has ever been defined throughout history. People worked to survive.
Thirdly, you are repeating feminist talking points which make absolutely no sense and lack any context. Until very recently housework was itself a full time job (washing, cooking, preparing meat, preserving fruit, darning socks, tending to the fire, feeding the chickens etc). It was manual labour by today's standards. SOMEBODY had to do this work in order to ensure survival. When you say women were not allowed into certain jobs you are disregarding the fact that for women to work outside the home meant men having to take over the housework full time. So what happens when they want children? That's 10+ years of pregnancy and breastfeeding when they have to reverse roles again. So what what would be the point of women paying to get an education, becoming an architect (or whatever), then taking 10 years off to have a family, while the husband built up his career from scratch, also paying for an education too. It's a massive waste of resources - assuming it was even a viable option at all, which it obviously would not be.
None of it makes any practical sense whatsoever. Feminist claims of 'oppression' are completely detached from the practical realities faced by men and women throughout all of history. They are just designed to shame men into submission. They seem to have worked on you.
Can you imagine what true female empowerment might look like? What about holding feminists to the same intellectual, moral and behavioural standards that we hold men to? That would be a start.
Could it be true? We're finally turning towards a form of common sense again when it comes to "gender"?
Brilliant piece. Thank you so much.
thanks for this detailed and dispassionate review!
I'm concerned that the response to this report in Canada and the US will be to double down on affirmative care. It will probably take detransitioner lawsuits to rock the boat here.
"The refusal by all but one adult gender clinic to cooperate in the outcome analysis for the 9000 patients as part of the Cass Review likely contributed to NHSE’s determination to investigate the adult service."
It seems that there is no requirement to participate (that can be enforced, anyway). Is this broad refusal due to captured workers who have no desire to participate in what occurs to them as a threat?
Great news. I’m most of the way through listening to Hannah Barnes’ excellent Time to Think, so this is very interesting news.
I want to hopeful that this will translate to the US, but it seems doubtful that the AAP will undertake a clear eyed review of the evidence. What is your outlook or level of optimism about a shift like this in the US in the next 5 years or so?
Anybody who has not yet read the letter from the Directors of Specialized Commissioning of the NHS to the directors of their gender clinics should do so. My favorite part was the marvelously British set of sentences at the end:
"In terms of immediate next steps and actions, we would ask the following:
• that you support discussions at Board level and with your adult GDCs on the findings
and recommendations set out in the final Cass Review report and their relevance to
the adult service.
• you prepare your adult GDCs to fully participate with the data linkage study and avoid
the need for mandatory direction in this respect. Further details will be communicated
shortly."
<sigh> I wonder how long it will be before the U.S. & Canada finally come on board. Unfortunately, we may be stuck with our transbot Prime Minister for at least another year ;(
> Ehrensaft was also a notable figure in promoting the now-defunct theory of repressed memory of satanic abuse
Citation Needed! And no, the link in that paragraph does NOT support this claim.
I can only find any involvment from Ehrensaft in ONE satanic case, and it really DID involve an occult group, and I can't find ANY mention of "repressed memories" in relation to that case. I urge you to read this short LA Times report on that case (including the bit about the room painted black):
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-08-04-mn-10261-story.html
Thank you so much for this important summation, I have a much clearer understanding of the issue from a clinicians point of view, not just my own (ok I was right) pragmatism.
Imagine if we had a review which concluded that teenage girls who identified as 'downtrodden, objectified, exploited victims of toxic male oppression' should NOT be affirmed in their identity, and instead should be helped to realise that actually men have spent the last few centuries working themselves to the bone in all weathers and in all kinds of horrendous environments to provide resources and protection to women, and that men have been engaged in a 5000 year project to make women's lives more and more comfortable and safe (and fun).
While ALL identities should be questioned, I would argue that a trans identity is more likely to have some validity than a feminist identity. With hormone levels all over the place, and a world full of environmental toxins, we should expect all kinds of state of dis-ease and discomfort - especially in the youth who have been exposed to our current environment since birth. But to identify as 'oppressed by men' goes against all common sense, objective facts and lived experiences.
Will we ever live to see a day when a feminist identity is allowed to be openly questioned or challenged in mainstream society?
Will we ever live to see a day when organisations which affirm such an identity (schools, universities, libraries, governments, UN Women etc) are condemned for enabling such a traumatising and debilitating identity? (and one which drives a wedge of fear, hatred and mistrust between the sexes).
Feminism is not an identity equivalent to “trans”. Feminism is a political movement that has historically been vital and somewhat successful. Its current (major) form is off the rails. But the core issues of ending male violence against women and girls and ending the sexual exploitation of women and girls are still laudable. Three women are murdered every week in the U.K. by a male partner. Only the gods know how many globally. Sex trafficking is rife worldwide. These are not trivial problems and the feminism that addresses them is still needed. Privileged women complaining about being oppressed when they don’t get the corner office in their top tier law firm should be ignored.
" Feminism is a political movement that has historically been vital and somewhat successful."
But there was never a time when men oppressed women. To identify as a feminist is a delusion, and one which is hateful to men and disempowering to women. What has empowered women over the past few centuries has been technology, most of which has been invented, built and maintained by men. Take men out of the equation and we'll all be back to the middle ages within a month.
Have you ever heard a feminist complain that women are not 'allowed' to work as plumbers, roofers, electricians, lorry drivers, deep sea divers or garbage collectors? No, because feminists are only interested in being CEOs, lawyers, academics and journalists. And they expect men to supply the electricity, running water, transport and infrastructure that allows them to have these lifestyles. Feminists have accepted men's sacrifices and gifts to women and then spat in men's faces in return.
" Its current (major) form is off the rails."
Feminism has always been off the rails. Men have always been women's greatest allies, not women's enemies. No feminist can name one period in history when it was preferable for women to swap roles with men of equivalent social status. So how can men have oppressed women? It makes no sense.
If men had looked after the children and stayed at home while their wives mined the coal, fished the oceans in wooden boats and built roads by hand nobody would argue that women got the better deal. Even today, stay at home husbands who are financially looked after by their wives are rare, and tend to be regarded as parasites.
Take any period in history including the present..... what is the arrangement that would NOT count as oppression? Feminists cannot say. Feminism is therefore a theory which cannot be falsified. That makes it a delusion, a demented ranting, an exploitative lie, a form of psychological torture and bullying of men.
" Three women are murdered every week in the U.K. by a male partner."
How does this prove women are systemically oppressed by men? Do you know any man who claims murdering women is OK? Has the law ever permitted men to murder women at any point in history?
Wherever women come to harm, or are perceived as being harmed, everybody expresses concern and outrage and pours resources into helping women. When Boko Harem kidnapped a bunch of school girls the entire planet launched a campaign to save them. Not one person even THOUGHT to ask what happened to the boys (they were all murdered on the spot). If you want examples of INSTITUTIONAL/ SYSTEMIC sexism and lack of concern just look to men and boys. From genital mutilation to rape to child custody... society does not care about men and boys. Society only cares about women and girls.
If feminism was actually true, everything in society would be the opposite of our current reality. The world feminists describe is literally the opposite of the world we have.
I think you’re getting carried away. But to your point: women not being able to own property, not being able to vote, not being allowed into many jobs that they are perfectly able to do; not, in fact, being in charge of their own lives. That is oppressive. Your narrative goes far too far the other way “everything was always great for women they should stop complaining!” is ahistorical nonsense. From our current standpoint in some cases yes, “feminism” is pretty toxic, but 100 years ago? Come on. It’s only because of feminism that you can say women have it pretty good now.
It isn’t the job of feminists to advocate for men and boys, and I don’t like the binary nature of that position, because I agree men and boys are vulnerable too. You want to advocate for men and boys you do that, but why fall into the same trap you claim feminists have? You don’t need to denigrate feminists to do that, in the same way they don’t need to denigrate men to do their advocacy.
"I think you’re getting carried away."
How is holding feminists to the most basic standards of evidence and reason 'getting carried away'? Are you suggesting feminists should be beyond criticism?
"But to your point: women not being able to own property, not being able to vote, not being allowed into many jobs that they are perfectly able to do; not, in fact, being in charge of their own lives. That is oppressive."
Firstly, all of these things applied to men too. I think you are getting your 'history' from feminists and not fact checking to see if they are lying (they are).
Secondly, you are defining 'jobs' as a privilege and a lifestyle option. This is how feminists view work, but it is not how work has ever been defined throughout history. People worked to survive.
Thirdly, you are repeating feminist talking points which make absolutely no sense and lack any context. Until very recently housework was itself a full time job (washing, cooking, preparing meat, preserving fruit, darning socks, tending to the fire, feeding the chickens etc). It was manual labour by today's standards. SOMEBODY had to do this work in order to ensure survival. When you say women were not allowed into certain jobs you are disregarding the fact that for women to work outside the home meant men having to take over the housework full time. So what happens when they want children? That's 10+ years of pregnancy and breastfeeding when they have to reverse roles again. So what what would be the point of women paying to get an education, becoming an architect (or whatever), then taking 10 years off to have a family, while the husband built up his career from scratch, also paying for an education too. It's a massive waste of resources - assuming it was even a viable option at all, which it obviously would not be.
None of it makes any practical sense whatsoever. Feminist claims of 'oppression' are completely detached from the practical realities faced by men and women throughout all of history. They are just designed to shame men into submission. They seem to have worked on you.
Can you imagine what true female empowerment might look like? What about holding feminists to the same intellectual, moral and behavioural standards that we hold men to? That would be a start.
Is it available in book form? It looks like it on the illustartion at the top....Where can it be bought?
The Cass report can be dowloaded freely from here: https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/