Getting ahead of myself - but here down goes 'gender affirmation' ... oh, dearie me - now they'll come out with 'saying there is no valid medical pathway does not mean rejection of 'gender affirmation' - of course not, darlings - it just leaves it out of consideration:-

It seems you're either unwilling or incapable of acknowledging that I’ve already addressed your question. Allow me to summarise the absurdity here to ensure the point penetrates.

You’re demanding I substantiate a claim you’ve arbitrarily decided Mothra made about the Cass Review.

Except, brace yourself, Mothra didn’t make that claim. You did, on their behalf, as part of some clumsy attempt to disprove it.

Worse still, the claim you’re flailing about doesn’t even align with the scope or purpose of the review.

And yet, when I pointed out that the evidence you’ve dragged forward as “proof” against this imaginary claim actually reinforces Mothra’s position (not that they ever made this claim to begin with), your rebuttal is to demand a line-by-line quote phrased to your arbitrary specifications.

If I don’t oblige, you’ll smugly declare yourself victorious? Is this genuinely the intellectual high ground you think you're occupying?

Unbelievable.

The Cass Review’s recommendations suggest a recalibration of gender-related healthcare for young people in the NHS, prioritising caution, evidence-based practice, and comprehensive care. While gender-affirming care remains available, the focus is on ensuring that interventions are safe, appropriate, and supported by robust evidence. This may slow down access to some treatments, particularly for minors, but does not propose eliminating them outright.

How can you possibly interpret that this therefore means they do not support gender affirmation?

" While gender-affirming care remains available, the focus is on ensuring that interventions are safe, appropriate, and supported by robust evidence."

Simple - they are mutually exclusive ... think on it....  the SHIFT is completely away from 'gender affirmation' - therefore - after hours and hours of dealing with fools - the Cass Review does not support 'gender affirmation' even if it remains a distant possibility after years of close-up work.

What is wrong with you lot?  Got some huge chip on your shoulder about trannies?

Your idea of 'gender affirming' is for some dork to walk in - say 'I'm blah-blah-blah' and get a credential saying so... assigned from a list in front of the 'counsellor' - or as quoted in many cases - the Falcon receptionist..

.

Are you for real?

Here you are, you utter simpletons:-

"Because, you utter simpleton, the Cass Report sets out by saying there is a need for gender affirming care."

NO - It - Does - Not!  And when asked to SHOW where it did - the response was just more childish verbal violence.

Now - if YOU can show us where in the Cass Review report it says it supports gender affirmation - go ahead.  Here is the closest it gets.  If methra is so positive the Report supports 'gender affirmation' - why did hshe not show that in a link or a screenshot or something - anything - to support that outlandish assertion?

What is the matter with you two?  Doctor got your dick?  Dokteur Frankenstein got your tits?

Two days of relentless arguing and the dorks don't even recognise the points raised in the Cass Review report, such as - no comments received, therefore:-