Trans Healthcare in the UK

ZenGiraffe

ZenGiraffe

Who is SHE though?
Pronouns
He/Him
Joined
Apr 25, 2020
Messages
24,108
Location
San Marino
The Cass review came out today, and has been getting a fair bit of attention:

www.bbc.co.uk

Hilary Cass: Weak evidence letting down children over gender care

A landmark report says "toxicity" of debate is hampering medical research into gender services.
www.bbc.co.uk

Two deeply worrying things from the outset:

First, you're a child until your 25 if you (think you) are trans:


Secondly, Trans Men aren't really a thing, apparently:



Oh, and NOTED CUNT Wes Streeting supports it, of course:


There is also pressure in Scotland to follow suit, and given the SNP's struggles with their bigot wing in the past, I reckon it is likely, especially once they likely lose a bunch of seats next Scottish election.

I know there is a lack of evidence in this field, but it really feels like this will be a significant step backward in healthcare for young people who want to (and should) transition. The THINK OF THE CHILDREN rhetoric doesn't seem to apply to the kids who will have a worse time because their transition is being made more difficult, and won't get proper medical intervention until much later than they can do now.
 
It’s thoroughly depressing and the entire thing has already been ripped to shreds for the utter lack of proper evidence or research it’s used.

If this was any other aspect of healthcare it would be seen as a shambolic embarrassment and laughed off the stage, but as transphobia is the flavour of the moment it will be welcomed in. An utter disgrace.
 
I’m so glad we have all these straight people creating gender rules!
 
  • Angry
Reactions: LTZ
ZenGiraffe said:
Two deeply worrying things from the outset:

First, you're a child until your 25 if you (think you) are trans:
Click to expand...
Fwiw, this isn’t true and is being spread as misinformation. The report simply concludes that follow-up appointments to provide continuity of care for those aged 17-25.

IMG_7439.jpeg


Seems reasonable enough?

All the recommendations seem common sense to me, especially considering the poor care young people were previously receiving. I honestly would not simply believe the bad faith reporting by the usual characters online based on (perhaps wilful) misreading of the actual report.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
View attachment 25418
Click to expand...

I don’t want to insult your intelligence, but you’ve misread this page of the report, and selected a portion of the point in isolation that you’ve misinterpreted.

This page is about discharging from youth services. The point you’ve quoted is about removing the need for the transition from youth service to adult services for those aged 17-25 as a result of the follow-on appointments. This frees up the adult service to provide the care they need to those entering the system as adults.

I’m not replying to your second point because you are insulting my intelligence.
 
gggggg said:
I don’t want to insult your intelligence, but you’ve misread this page of the report, and selected a portion of the point in isolation that you’ve misinterpreted.

This page is about discharging from youth services. The point you’ve quoted is about removing the need for the transition from youth service to adult services for those aged 17-25 as a result of the follow-on appointments. This frees up the adult service to provide the care they need to those entering the system as adults.

I’m not replying to your second point because you are insulting my intelligence.
Click to expand...
:D

are you fucking stupid or what
 
no you're being dense as fuck love. the part highlighted in Zens post is about the "need for (gender) transition" NOT "transition from youth to adult services". the real question is why you're making excuses for this report that is clearly explicitly designed to support the government's anti-trans agenda.
 
Jark said:
:D

are you fucking stupid or what
Click to expand...
Sadly, he's right on the specific point:

1712915398337.png


(What a stupid decision to use the word transition instead of transfer, given the subject matter and that the very next section is titled "Detransition")

So I withdraw that specific criticism of the report
 
Jark said:
no you're being dense as fuck love. the part highlighted in Zens post is about the "need for (gender) transition" NOT "transition from youth to adult services". the real question is why you're making excuses for this report that is clearly explicitly designed to support the government's anti-trans agenda.
Click to expand...
No, it’s literally talking about the transition to adult services. That is what the page is about. Read it.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
Sadly, he's right on the specific point:

View attachment 25424

(What a stupid decision to use the word transition instead of transfer, given the subject matter and that the very next section is titled "Detransition")

So I withdraw that specific criticism of the report
Click to expand...
It is the correct technical term in this context. A person doesn’t transfer, they transition.
 
Jark said:
no you're being dense as fuck love. the part highlighted in Zens post is about the "need for (gender) transition" NOT "transition from youth to adult services". the real question is why you're making excuses for this report that is clearly explicitly designed to support the government's anti-trans agenda.
Click to expand...
Also, crucially, the report recommends a better service for all involved. It isn’t a whitewash or towing the government line. In fact it’s notably agnostic about many of the arguments coming from the gender critical crowd.

I would read the report and draw your own conclusions. I wouldn’t trust anything from social media cherry picking or taking points out of context. From either side. A ton of disinformation doing the rounds.
 
gggggg said:
I don’t want to insult your intelligence, but you’ve misread this page of the report, and selected a portion of the point in isolation that you’ve misinterpreted.

This page is about discharging from youth services. The point you’ve quoted is about removing the need for the transition from youth service to adult services for those aged 17-25 as a result of the follow-on appointments. This frees up the adult service to provide the care they need to those entering the system as adults.

I’m not replying to your second point because you are insulting my intelligence.
Click to expand...
The thing is though - your interpretation is a good faith reading of this recommendation. It is quite fair to look at the report and wider context and conclude that recommendations that may at first appear benign or even helpful are actually not good when you look below the surface or even just at the practicalities of implementation.

For context - I work in a Policy role and am very used to that sort of thing from publications from or requested by government and arms-length bodies. If they want to do something shit, they have to find a way to spin it as positive.
 
Tetris-Rock said:
The thing is though - your interpretation is a good faith reading of this recommendation. It is quite fair to look at the report and wider context and conclude that recommendations that may at first appear benign or even helpful are actually not good when you look below the surface or even just at the practicalities of implementation.

For context - I work in a Policy role and am very used to that sort of thing from publications from or requested by government and arms-length bodies. If they want to do something shit, they have to find a way to spin it as positive.
Click to expand...
My interpretation is the literal meaning of the recommendation. I’m not saying it’ll work, or be successful, it is just the actual outcome. The only criticism you levy is that it uses the correct technical language to a fault.

I accept your point that harmful proposals can be sneaked into apparently benign documentation. I personally don’t see that in this review, having read it.
 
gggggg said:
My interpretation is the literal meaning of the recommendation. I’m not saying it’ll work, or be successful, it is just the actual outcome. The only criticism you levy is that it uses the correct technical language to a fault.

I accept your point that harmful proposals can be sneaked into apparently benign documentation. I personally don’t see that in this review, having read it.
Click to expand...
Isn't this report something like 400 pages?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom