mothra wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 8:32am:




No.... It.... Does.... NOT!  As usual you've got it backwards and to suit your own silly narrative.... whatever that is.

Overview of key findings

    There is no simple explanation for the increase in the numbers of predominantly young people and young adults who have a trans or gender diverse identity, but there is broad agreement that it is a result of a complex interplay between biological, psychological and social factors. This balance of factors will be different in each individual.

   There are conflicting views about the clinical approach, with expectations of care at times being far from usual clinical practice. This has made some clinicians fearful of working with gender-questioning young people, despite their presentation being similar to many children and young people presenting to other NHS services.

    An appraisal of international guidelines for care and treatment of children and young people with gender incongruence found that that no single guideline could be applied in its entirety to the NHS in England.

    While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.

    The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate.

    The controversy surrounding the use of medical treatments has taken focus away from what the individualised care and treatment is intended to achieve for individuals seeking support from NHS gender services.

    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 the majority of young people, a medical pathway may 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.

    Innovation is important if medicine is to move forward, but there must be a proportionate level of monitoring, oversight and regulation that does not stifle progress, while preventing creep of unproven approaches into clinical practice. Innovation must draw from and contribute to the evidence base.

mothra wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 8:50am:


Well - do try to tell us what YOU think it means instead of dancing around to evade discussion......

Show us all in here where it supports 'gender affirmation' - it says the exact opposite:-

The recommendations set out a different approach to healthcare, more closely aligned with usual NHS clinical practice that considers the young person holistically and not solely in terms of their gender-related distress. The central aim of assessment should be to help young people to thrive and achieve their life goals.

    Services must operate to the same standards as other services seeing children and young people with complex presentations and/or additional risk factors.

    Expand capacity through a distributed service model, based in paediatric services and with stronger links between secondary and specialist services.

    Children/ young people referred to NHS gender services must receive a holistic assessment of their needs to inform an individualised care plan. This should include screening for neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, and a mental health assessment.

    Standard evidence based psychological and psychopharmacological treatment approaches should be used to support the management of the associated distress from gender incongruence and cooccurring conditions, including support for parents/carers and siblings as appropriate.

    Services should establish a separate pathway for pre-pubertal children and their families. ensuring that they are prioritised for early discussion about how parents can best support their child in a balanced and non-judgemental way. When families/carers are making decisions about social transition of pre-pubertal children, services should ensure that they can be seen as early as possible by a clinical professional with relevant experience.

    NHS England should ensure that each Regional Centre has a follow-through service for 17–25-year-olds; either by extending the range of the regional children and young people’s service or through linked services, to ensure continuity of care and support at a potentially vulnerable stage in their journey.  This will also allow clinical, and research follow up data to be collected.

    There needs to be provision for people considering detransition, recognising that they may not wish to re-engage with the services whose care they were previously under.

    A full programme of research should be established to look at the characteristics, interventions and outcomes of every young person presenting to the NHS gender services.
    The puberty blocker trial previously announced by NHS England should be part of a programme of research which also evaluates outcomes of psychosocial interventions and masculinising/ feminising hormones.

    The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18.  Every case considered for medical treatment should be discussed at a national Multi- Disciplinary Team (MDT).

    Implications of private healthcare on any future requests to the NHS for treatment, monitoring and/or involvement in research, and the dispensing responsibilities of pharmacists of private prescriptions needs to be clearly communicated.

mothra wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 8:57am:


White flag accepted - puerile attempt to cover nothing to offer by abuse again .... now we shoot the prisoners... like the SS - your atrocities have gone too far to be simply pushed onto a POW camp superintendent.... you must face trial for your crimes...

... rolling like a juggernaut ...

You stupid, boy?  Mothra said the Cass review supported 'gender affirmation'

The question was - SHOW ME!

And you come back with that rot?  If I thought for one moment you were seriously trying to learn reality - I would happily discuss endlessly the same nonsense you put out over and over - but since you don't - either address the point or piss off.

Answer the question.. address the point.... where does the Cass Report in any way 'support gender affirmation'?

What's this utter rot about 'copy and paste' THE REPORT in response to mothra's unfounded assertion - and all this 'tippy-toeing' stupidity you come up with?  Proof, sonny - proof is what it is that it does NOT support 'gender affirmation'.

Mothra made a stupid assertion about The Report - was shown to be wrong again - and now you try this rubbish.

Something wrong with you pair.

Now either engage in good faith in reality discussion - or just buggar off.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 10:11am:


Firstly, let me clarify: I’m not Mothra, and it’s not my responsibility to provide you with that information.

You’ve posed a question to Mothra and now demand that anyone engaging with you provide an answer, all while refusing to respond to questions directed at you. And yet, you lament the lack of good faith in this exchange?

Please... I don't think I'm the only once who tries of your endless attempts at painting yourself as the victim.

Secondly, Mothra never claimed that the review came to that conclusion.  Their claim was that:

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 7:46am:


Nobody had mentioned gender affirmation until you tried to counter this point.  You introduced that.  Then you eventually misrepresented Mothra's claim, demanding that:

mothra wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 8:54am:


Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 8:56am:


You're the one changing the goalposts.  You're being disingenuous and asking people to justify their claims by trying to prove something else...

What...

But I'll give you your good faith response, so lets look a little deeper at your claim and the reports findings.

It’s interesting that you’re fixated on the report and this specific claim, particularly given that you made it, AND it was never the central aim of the review.

Quote:


Very disingenuous of you.

But to continue that line you're pushing, you answered your own question by highlighting the summary of the recommendations, in terms of gender affirmation, that it proves the opposite, that it does not support Gender Affirmation:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 8:56am:


The problem for you is, and this is why I suspect you're being fed what to think and haven't read it for yourself, and are simply copying and pasting your arguments here, the review emphasised the need for a more holistic and comprehensive approach to treating gender dysphoria. While acknowledging the benefits of puberty blockers, it pointed out that the long-term risks remain unclear, meaning their efficacy cannot yet be fully assessed.

This is precisely why the review recommends continuing the use of puberty blockers in clinical settings for those under 18, allowing their effects to be thoroughly researched.

To me, this approach signals support for gender affirmation, coupled with a commitment to ensuring that treatment methods are as safe and effective as possible in both the short and long term.

Even Dr Hilary Cass, the principal author, has condemned the misrepresentation of her findings. She stated:

Quote:


This clearly reflects a balanced perspective: supporting gender affirmation while ensuring treatments are tailored and evidence-based. Wouldn’t you agree?

If not, the burden is now on you to demonstrate where in the report it explicitly states that the researchers oppose gender affirmation, because copying and pasting the recommendation summary disproves your claims, as does the author herself.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 21^st, 2024 at 10:11am:


Now it's your turn, friend.