April 26, 2024 - 11:55am
In a remarkable shift, The Guardian has published an opinion piece in defence of the Cass Report, written by a psychiatrist who revealed malpractice at the Tavistock gender clinic. David Bell’s article claims that Hillary Cass’s review of youth gender services “marks a return to reason and evidence” and “must be defended”. While its sister paper the Observer has previously been more receptive of Cass’s conclusions, the Guardian has been more reluctant.
A day after the report was released, it published an article by transgender writer Freddy McConnell which criticised Cass for “failing to take on clinicians who doubt the very existence of trans children” and “giv[ing] credence to anti-trans bias”. McConnell’s article was later amended after a previous version suggested that the feminist campaigner Julie Bindel had likened trans adults to Jimmy Savile.
In today’s article, Bell cites “the lack of an evidential base of good quality that could back claims for the effectiveness of young people being prescribed puberty blockers”, as well as his prior concerns about “the risks of long-term damaging consequences of early medical intervention”. More, he claims that the policy of “affirmation” — agreeing with a child’s belief that they were born in the wrong gender — was “an inappropriate clinical stance brought about by influential activist groups”.
A number of former Guardian writers have since spoken publicly about a culture at the paper which stifled gender-critical views and of staff who bullied women for criticising the Left-of-centre orthodoxy on “gender-affirming care”. Suzanne Moore, who used to be a columnist there, wrote for UnHerd in 2020 about her experience of being ostracised by colleagues for her views on sex differences, while former staff writer Hadley Freeman stressed in an essay that “it’s not bigoted” to stand up for single-sex spaces and the rights of biological women.
Speaking to UnHerd today, Bindel said, “I know how hard David Bell had to try to get the Guardian to agree to him writing an opinion piece, following his complaints about the Freddy McConnell article. I don’t believe for one minute that the Guardian has decided it has been wrong all along on this issue, but its hand has been forced.” Speaking about the newspaper, she went on, “What a monumental mess it’s made of everything, losing decent feminist journalists and readers in order to capitulate to transactivists on staff and contract.”
A Guardian editorial earlier this month labelled Cass’s work “necessary and important”, though it added that the review was “not a full stop in the [gender] debate”. Bell concludes his opinion piece by claiming that “the pendulum is already swinging towards a reassertion of rationality. Cass’s achievement is to give that pendulum a hugely increased momentum.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Freddy McConnell which criticised Cass for “failing to take on clinicians who doubt the very existence of trans children”…”
Because they don’t exist. They are children, they can’t possibly know yet, leave them alone to come to their own decisions when they are adults. It is really very creepy how these people go after children.
I certainly believe in trans children.
If you are going through puberty, you are transitioning from a child to an adult.
I believe in letting children make that transition.
But what you, a child abuser, mean by that is if they are undergoing the wrong one by accident of nature, you intend to force them into it.
Gosh! In the olden days when I was young we never heard about puberty, had no idea we were going through it. We girls just resigned ourselves to our monthlies and got on with going to school and so forth until we were old enough to marry (which some of never did!).
They’re neo-Marxists, intent on destroying the nuclear family through the sexualisation of children.
You are a gobsmackingly ignorant idiot, since neither Marxism nor “sexualising children” has anything to do with it. You can defend your imbecilic position in no way whatsoever.
No such thing as a trans adult either no mammal can change sex. I have no intention of being unkind to adults who believe they’re the opposite sex, but to dignify their denial of reality by a special “trans” category is nonsense.
You know sweetie, it doesn’t matter if the HRT and surgery isn’t good enough for you — you don’t count, and should not.
Bot ?
If you were it would explain you.
Totally agree …this is a psycho stunt done by people that just want attention…Trans people are mentally whacked out…simple brain issue…lobotomy would do them and their families better…
So you are willing to be slightly better about it than to scream, “lebensunwertes leben!” ? How generous of you.
It is a simple body issue, the brain being the person in a way the body is not — a transgender man is a man for the same reason a cisgender man is, and a transgender woman is a woman for the same reason a cisgender woman is.
Now you may have a brain issue which could be called, “simple”.
“Because they don’t exist.” <– A baseless faith that makes of you a deliberate advocate for mandating some spectacularly vile child abuse be done by law and policy. Every transgender person is born that way, none are “made”. Every transgender adult was a transgender teenager, was transgender child, was a transgender toddle, was a transgender infant.
“They are children, they can’t possibly know yet,” <– Liar, instead near all do know — and you have no possible excuse for pretending you know otherwise or have the slightest knowledge whereof you speak.
“leave them alone to come to their own decisions when they are adults” <– When with that attitude you are saying what you want to do is to force at least 99 boys and girls to have respectively breasts and periods, and, beards and deep voices to save 1 from making any mistake — I know you are the evil creep and revile you.
No-one should make policy on the basis of adults perceptions of their own childhoods when 85 % of kids resolve their gender issues.
“when 85 % of kids resolve their gender issues” <– But that is a lie, near none do.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2815512
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129132924.htm
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36935303/
Thanks. Your vile and abusive tirades hammer more nails into the coffin of delusionary transactivist dogma than any reasoned critique is likely to do. Keep it up. (Now I sit back and eagerly anticipate your hysterical response …)
Groomers
Says a child abuser — and if you do not support gender affirming care for youth, you are that.
And you believe in damaging children.
I wonder who will be the first of the trans supporting journalists who says in the future “I never really believed in all that stuff”.
Could be interesting.
It’s starting already amongst the MPs. Rats leaving a sinking ship and an election in the offing.
So what? Hillary Cass will give them no cover.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dr-cass-backpedals-from-review-hrt
She won’t give you any cover either.
Soo True. Spineless, snivelling politicians. Reminds me of starmer’s reply(or non) to the question put whether a woman can have a pecker or not.
As a Conservative activist I wouldn’t deliver a single leaflet for Gillian Keegan.
Who cares? What is real remains and denies your dreams.
Even Cass now says she disagrees with what you said her report said.
Articles like the one cited from The Guardian are an attempt to do just that. The same writer who heralds a return to “reason and evidence” should be asked why he and others abandoned those things to start with.
If you are referring to Dr David Bell, what evidence do you have for asserting that he abandoned reason and evidence? He was part of the Tavistock, but not of GIDS, and listened to whistleblowers to write his report. He is not a Guardian staff writer, either.
An obvious case of PTSD;
Post Trans-madness Shit Deflection.
One wonders too, Andrew, who will break ranks to reveal how they were secretly against lockdowns and the jabberocracy; next in line, perhaps, net zero
And there will be those who say they are trans now, quietly dropping the make up, the skirts, the fake boobs….
Or “I really regret believing all that stuff and the damage it’s caused to children, young people and their parents. “.
When you’ve lost the Guardian, you’ve lost…I don’t know, something.
A lockdown source of bum fodder.
In fairness, they do dress as badly as Jimmy Savile did.
“They” who?
Hmm. Wonder if Moore and Freeman will get their jobs back …
Probably not. They are both dreadful-can’t-help-themselves misandrists, and the Guardian still has plenty of those.
mis·an·drist
/məˈsandrəst/
noun
plural noun: misandrists
1) a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against men.
2) The Guardian
You need to look up the meaning of misandrist. I read essays by both women, and they support the rights of women to have their own private spaces and protecting children. I have never read anything of their’s that attacks men unless the men are pretending to be women.
Which version of the Cass Report?
What Social Conservatives claim it says, or what Cass claims it says now?
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dr-cass-backpedals-from-review-hrt
Nuance NE change.
I appreciate the downvotes. Not a one of you has the slightest factual and relevant thing to say to excuse you.
You are only willful child abusers and liars.
I literally quote Cass herself exploding your dreams, and all you have are downvotes!
Delightful!
You’re playing word games here. The concern for Dr. Cass is the lack of clear, empirical evidence about the risks and benefits of hormones and puberty blockers for children – that children were being directed to medical treatment without comprehensive assessment of other mental health issues and medical conditions.
Dr. Cass didn’t completely reject hormones, she said this should only be done with “extreme caution” and there should be a “clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18”. Her concern is that children today are being rushed into medical treatments without comprehensive review of their condition.
The essay you link to says Dr. Cass has backpeddled from the review. This is simply not the case.
“You’re playing word games here.” <– No I am not, I am flatly restating what Dr. Hilary Cass has herself said.
She says there is no evidence supporting the idea that gender affirming care is unsafe, and the children should on an individualized basis per case be given blockers and then HRT — she recommended no new restrictions.
She has fully endorsed gender affirming care as it is practiced per WPATH standards. If you do not agree that is what her report said, then go argue with her.
Hopeless ideologue. Insert fingers in ears and bang table.
She says there is none supporting it is unsafe OR safe.
The “individual basis” in specific cases, not any and all children coming forward.
She was critical of WPATH and that its guidlines lacked developmental rigour.
Stop relying on Erin Reed.
See my reply .
The Cass review was not about deciding whether puberty suppressing hormones are an unsafe treatment.
It was about whether the evidence being put forward in favour of them was based in good science.
It found that the scioence was lacking and that further rigorous investigation was needed before any continuation of prescribing should go on.
The trans movement is a form of child abuse championed by the Left in the same way they did the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 197Os. Not saying equating the two but saying both were/are a form of child abuse advanced by adults, mainly men.
“The trans movement is a form of child abuse championed by the Left in the same way they did the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 197Os. Not saying equating the two but saying both were/are a form of child abuse advanced by adults, mainly men.” <– And I have proven over and over again here you have not the slightest excuse for anything you claim — and you are yourself the one of the two of us claiming child abuse must be mandated and it is actually good.
Now that someone at The Guardian says the Cass report “marks a return to reason and evidence,” perhaps the paper will now ponder the larger question of how and why we deviated from reason and evidence in the first place. Otherwise, that write-up sounds like the typical amen chorus that characterizes people who change their previous position in an effort to look like they agreed with the conclusion all along.
Except Hilary Cass now says “the evidence” says children should be given puberty blockers far more often and more so than they have been, and she has no problem with gender affirming care for youth.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dr-cass-backpedals-from-review-hrt
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/ (the official report site not some twisted commentary on it)
The Cass conclusions / recommendations are clear:
“The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.
Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.
For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.
Disagree with them if you want, the fact is NHS England has accepted them and is implementing them and Scotland is following suit. The rest of the world will also follow suit in its own time. Why pretend they are saying anything other than what they are very clearly saying? It is not going to change the afore-mentioned fact.
Cass does allow for proper controlled experimentation iaw medical norms. However the review was blocked from getting the evidence from over 9000 kids who have already been experimented on. That block has been removed but it will take time for the results to be known. Only then should any further experimentation happen to answer key questions to which the answers are really needed.
And everything you claim she recommended in the way of restricting gender affirming care is repudiated by her already.
That’s all there is.
You want to abuse children, this is proven, and you lose.
Please provide a link to where NHS England says it is now reversing its previously revised policy and is now going to restart routinely prescribing puberty blockers.
If you cannot do that, and I know you can’t, then your argument that Cass has been repudiated is demonstrably false.
All the has happened is an activist group picked up on a comment that there is no point starting blockers at 15 as it is too late and is twisting that to mean Cass is in favour of prescribing them earlier – she is not.
The full Cass review can be downloaded here:
https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf
The section on puberty blockers starts on page 172.
The issue is the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of treating gender dysphoria Vs the real risks of harm that have not be properly evaluated.
“Please provide a link to where NHS England says it is now reversing its previously revised policy and is now going to restart routinely prescribing puberty blockers.” <– Lying, child abusing imbecile, I never said any such thing — I said and it is true, Cass has repudiated what you have claimed her report said.
The fact you have to make up something and claim I said it shows the worth of your argument and your honesty — none exists of either.
NHS England have accepted the findings of the Cass review and has revised the policy to stop routine prescription of puberty blockers from 1 April 2024. That is a fact.
If Cass has either repudiated her own report or her report had been repudiated ie rejected then the policy would have changed. It has not so there has been no repudiation other than by those locked in the gender identity cult who cannot bring themselves to accept the plain truth of the report, which has been implemented in England and Wales and has been accepted for implementation in Scotland and over time will be followed in the rest of the anglophone world and beyond.
I have read her report in full (it was quite a slog but the only way to be sure I do know what it actually says), have you? Clearly not or you would not be reliant on biased reporting from trans activist sites for your information.
“NHS England have accepted the findings of the Cass review and has revised the policy to stop routine prescription of puberty blockers from 1 April 2024. That is a fact.” <– Which ones? Because what Cass says her report says is that gender affirming care should be far more ubiquitously available.
“If Cass has either repudiated her own report or her report had been repudiated ie rejected then the policy would have changed” <– Why do you pretend that?
“I have read her report in full” <– So have I. It is quite a stupendously tendentious, fraudulent document. It seems to be written in such a way Cass can pretend it is all things to all people — and that is far too wide a horse for her to ride.
“It is quite a stupendously tendentious, fraudulent document. It seems to be written in such a way Cass can pretend it is all things to all people — and that is far too wide a horse for her to ride.”
So does Cass recommend more use of puberty blockers or not? Just provide the para and page number that supports your view or accept that you are lost in your own little cult bubble and don’t really have anything to offer to the conversation.
No more BS and personal insults, just provide the para and page Nos from the final report.
“So does Cass recommend more use of puberty blockers or not?” <– What she has more recently said is that puberty blockers are safe and should be far more readily available.
“No more BS and personal insults, just provide the para and page Nos from the final report.” <– Lying imbecile, Cass is repudiating what you claim her report says.
The fact you can find a phrase or two in the report you can selectively quote to support you does not change that.
You repeatedly selectively quoting the report is BS which does not address that, and accurate description of you as a mulish child abusing imbecile is not insult.
Cass has not repudiated her own report since publication (your interview does not claim she has changed her mind, but is supposedly reporting on the report as written: “The Cass review report does not conclude that puberty suppressing hormones are an unsafe treatment…” what the report does actually say starts at page 272). Her report, which has been widely praised and accepted even by people who would have hoped for a different outcome, does not say more use should be made of puberty blockers. Those are facts that a cult member won’t be able to handle so don’t bother. No amount of hysterical name calling is going to get anyone to accept your deluded version.
That a trans activist group has published an edited version of an interview which twists what the report actually said is as unsurprising as it is irrelevant in the real world now that the eyes of people outside the gender identity cult have been opened. Only those still stuck inside the cult care.
Prove me wrong with para and page numbers from the report or with a link to an interview with an unbiased organisation where Cass is specifically quoted as saying she got it wrong – you can’t so don’t bother trying.
Your claim it is not a faithful report of their interview with Dr. Cass is up to you to prove.
Again, Cass is repudiating what you claim her report says — you quoting that report selectively does not change that.
You are in the only cult here, the one that claims gender does not really exist.
It clearly cherry picks the bits it likes. But at least you now agree that it is not a report of Cass repudiating her own report or saying more use should be made of puberty blockers.
You have not, because you cannot, provide anything to support your lie that Cass has changed her mind or pointed to anything in the report that supports more use of puberty blockers.
What Cass says about the medical pathway is:
“The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.
Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.
For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.
Cass carefully avoids getting bogged down in arguments over whether something is or is not safe as the truth is there is insufficient evidence either way. You and the cult will always disagree but now those outside the cult have had their eyes open the mutilation of children has been stopped in UK and the effect will spread.
Dr David Bell is not ‘someone at the Guardian’; he wrote an opinion piece that was published by the Guardian. He’s an eminent psychiatrist who facilitated whistleblowers at the Tavistock.
The Guardian supported Mussolini until it didn’t, was a cheerleader for eugenics and forcible sterilisation, sacked Malcolm Muggeridge rather than recognise the truth about Stalin, employed a known KGB man on its foreign desk for decades, deliberately lied about New Labour’s plans to raid the pension funds, ignored the widespread abuse of children in our northern cities even when it was an open secret … The list goes on endlessly.
‘Reason and evidence’ have never been it’s strong suit.
Alternatively, it shows that some newspapers – the Guardian included – publish a diversity of views.
The Guardian is NOT a “diversity of views” purveyor and certainly not a propogator of diversity in reality. Much like the BBC They all appear to be smelling reality salts and perhaps, snivellingly creeping in another view to ensure they are not deserted en mass.
I love how the cowardly sheepdogs here at the very herd-like Unherd delete content which refutes their featured snake oil salesmen.
Dr,. Hilary Cass has repudiated what Social Conservatives claimed her report said.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dr-cass-backpedals-from-review-hrt
I’ve made no fewer than comments which are perfectly factual, which UnHerd has deleted. There are none here yet who I am replying to who are deserving of any respect, because you love lies and which lies you love.
Dr. Hilary Cass, in an interview with LGBTQ+ organizations,
Her first mistake was thinking it possible to reason with the rainbow mafia. This is like the people who used to come under attack for saying that men and women are different and, as such, have different interests.
Child abusing imbecile, she is giving an interview — not debating — and she is saying the opposite of what your sort have said she did in her report.
Oh, good; childish insults masquerading as argument. The report itself said what it said, not my ‘sort.’ Your sort just can’t handle it because it interferes with your desire to sterilize children.
They are not childish and are not argument — they are sadly accurate description of you — I note you have no ability to say otherwise.
Your argument is with Hilary Cass, she says your sort lied about what her report said
So she waited a week and an inquisition by the rainbow mafia to say that her report – which was broadcast all over the place – was misrepresented. A report whose words were not hard to grasp and whose words led to the same conclusion in outlet after outlet, even the ones that previously bowed to the terror.
Scream and yell some more, toss our more mindless ad hominem, keep advocating for the drugging and carving up children, then wonder why people look at you sideways.
And yes she insists the report says nothing you claim it does. She says there should not be restrictions of gender affirming care and it should be provided in a far more timely fashion — that means a lot more of it.
That interview is here:
https://thekitetrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Cass-Review-Mythbusting-Q-and-A.pdf
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/ (the official report site not some twisted commentary on it)
The Cass conclusions / recommendations are clear:
“The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.
Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.
For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.
Disagree with them if you want, the fact is NHS England has accepted them and is implementing them and Scotland is following suit. The rest of the world will also follow suit in its own time. Why pretend they are saying anything other than what they are very clearly saying? It is not going to change the afore-mentioned fact.
Cass does allow for proper controlled experimentation iaw medical norms. However the review was blocked from getting the evidence from over 9000 kids who have already been experimented on. That block has been removed but it will take time for the results to be known. Only then should any further experimentation happen to answer key questions to which the answers are really needed
And despite what you claim, Cass has flatly stated there should be a lot more of gender affirming care. She has said 5 year wait times are unacceptable, 15 yo is far too late and blockers and HRT should be given far more soon.
“over 9000 kids who have already been experimented on” <– Those do not exist, because there is no such experimentation — what is the standard care approach for gender dysphoria is for over 20 years is not experimental.
Cass has been very clear that gender distressed youth deserve a lot better all round care than they have been getting and nobody disagrees. The better care she envisages is psycosocial and not hormonal / surgery based. That care should be exploratory and not automatically affirming.
“The better care she envisages is psychosocial and not hormonal / surgery based. That care should be exploratory and not automatically affirming.” <– Gender affirming care is exploratory, and everything else is conversion therapy, which she has vociferously explicitly condemned. There is no known possible psychiatric treatment for someone transgender, no such thing exists.
I refer you to para 69 on page 31 of the Cass report where she make clear that “the focus on puberty blockers has overshadowed the possibility that other evidenced based treatments may be more effective.”
Like I said, she has repudiated what you claim her report says.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/ (the official report site not some twisted commentary on it)
The Cass conclusions / recommendations are clear:
“The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.
Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.
For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.
Disagree with them if you want, the fact is NHS England has accepted them and is implementing them and Scotland is following suit. The rest of the world will also follow suit in its own time. Why pretend they are saying anything other than what they are very clearly saying? It is not going to change the afore-mentioned fact.
Cass does allow for proper controlled experimentation iaw medical norms. However the review was blocked from getting the evidence from over 9000 kids who have already been experimented on. That block has been removed but it will take time for the results to be known. Only then should any further experimentation happen to answer key questions to which the answers are really needed.
Repetition does not change the fact Cass has repudiated what you have claimed her report said.
“Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.” <– And regardless of whether she ever affirms that it is nevertheless a falsehood. The false positive rate is less than 1%, and this is known from study sizes approaching 8,000.
Except it remains true Cass has herself said there should be a lot more of and earlier administered gender affirming care, including blockers and HRT.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dr-cass-backpedals-from-review-hrt
That is quite simply a lie.
Cass has been very clear that gender distressed youth deserve a lot better all round care than they have been getting and nobody disagrees. The better care she envisages is psycosocial and not hormonal / surgery based. That care should be exploratory and not automatically affirming.
“Cass has been very clear that gender distressed youth deserve a lot better all round care than they have been getting and nobody disagrees” <– Yes, and she has said that requires a lot more of and administered when far more young — gender affirming care. That is what she specifically said when asked about blockers and HRT.
“The better care she envisages is psychosocial and not hormonal / surgery based. That care should be exploratory and not automatically affirming.” <– Gender affirming care is exploratory, and everything else is conversion therapy, which she has vociferously explicitly condemned. There is no known possible psychiatric treatment for someone transgender, no such thing exists.
I have read the report, you have not. It does not matter what lies and twisted arguments you and the gender identity cult cook up, nobody, who is in a position to affect things, is listening anymore.
“you have not.” <– Yes I have liar.
“nobody, who is in a position to affect things, is listening anymore” <– Including Hillary Cass, who has repudiated what you claim her report says.
“I’ve made no fewer than comments”
Numerals missing between ‘than’ and ‘comments’? Perhaps mistake made during your mad rush to insult Unherders (and others?)
This should now go the way of the “Recovered-Memory” scam of the 1980s. “Therapists” encouraged clients to recall traumatic represed memories of their abuse. The victims of the accusations were usually men, fathers. Court cases in the 1990s exposed many. A man successfully sued a clinician with implanting false memories of abuse in his daughter. Another was exonerated after serving five years of a life sentence for first degree murder based on the false retrieved memories from his daughter.
Be interesting to see research on the connection between being convinced by a therapist that you are really a different sex and being convinced by a therapist that you repressed your memory of abuse.
Guardian journalistic and ethical standards should be held up to question. It wasn’t that its journalists and editorial staff naively went along with transgender ideology, it was that they actually spearheaded this child-grooming movement and brooked zero debate on this matter. Now that public and expert opinion is so vociferous in its opposition to transgenderism they play the ‘we didn’t know this was happening’ card.
There needs to be a thorough investigation into The Guardian and other publications that pushed for surgical mutilation of children and mentally confused adults. And not just them, but also the massively wealthy sponsors who paid these publications to enforce this agenda.
Cass’s achievement is to give that pendulum a hugely increased momentum
.
Good but not enough. I believe that the guillotine would be a much more effective tool, and in any case, it gives a really strong momentum.
.
PS. I was never afraid of being down voted.
Especially in this case.
I have always compared the forced (the only correct word to describe what is happening) sterilization of children and adolescents with the practice of Dr. Mengele and people participating in this or promoting it must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Good.
Does this signal the end of one of my secret pleasures? You see, every time I read a Guardian Online article and that plea to enable cookies or make a donation pops up at the bottom, I ignore it and imagine that maybe this is the day that my refusal to part with my money results in Owen Jones not receiving payment for something he wrote.
Relax you crazy kids! Its just an opinion piece. One that the Guardian published because its a proper newspaper that reports a variety of views, unlike, say, all the conservative press.
I’m still amazed at the wild obsession about trans issues that Unherd has. Do you really think this is a successful wedge issue for the right?
Interesting how the two left-wing ideologues on this site are the least charitable, most hateful and derogatory.
Interesting, yes. But not surprising.
The adults on the Left have finally returned/woken up/taken the blinders off. Thank God.
Rats are leaving ship. Next comes the memory hole.
If Right wing Publications start to admit and write editorials about nonsense they previously supported they won’t be writing much else for some time!
Nonetheless Guardian gave too much credence and space to McConnell’s view, which whilst may well reflect how he felt as a child prior to transition cannot and should not have been conflated with clinical evidence. Big mistake and important lesson for the Publication about Group-Think. The push-back is happening.
Excellent news but the ‘hive’ at the centre of the Bee Bee C needs to be fumigated !
I have a feeling that Cass came at just the right time. The realisation that the whole trans thing was a ghastly cul-de-sac mistake was gradually dawning on the bien pensants. They could not, of course, say so, or even dare to think it, but then, like a deus ex machina Cass came to their rescue by giving them, as it were, permission to backtrack.
….
ummm… comments section been hacked, or what ?
I’m still not going to return to the Guardian. I’ll never trust that paper again.