On 17 April, Dr Hilary Cass and her team met with LGBTQ+ support organisations to address misconceptions about her report. The responses given do not support claims made for the Cass Review by anti-trans activists 🧵
Q: Is the Cass Review advocating for all trans healthcare for 18-25 year olds to be stopped?
A: “No. Cass made recommendations to NHS England. NHS England is now responsible for reviewing them and deciding if, how, and when aspects would come into effect.”
Q: Is the Cass Review Report saying that trans people would be better off if they didn’t transition?
A: No. “The word ‘transition’ was used in the report to mean a transition between NHS services and not in reference to gender transition.”
Q: If the 18-25 follow-through system were to come into being, what would it look like?
A: “The service is envisioned as a new provision to further expand the capacity and access to gender affirming healthcare for 18-25 year olds.”
Q: Is Dr. Cass against a ban on conversion therapy?
A: “Dr. Cass has stated that there should be zero tolerance for conversion practices and it should be a matter for a regulator to investigate if anyone is found to be causing harm in this way.”
Q: Does Dr. Cass believe puberty blockers are unsafe drugs?
A: “The Cass Review Report does not conclude that puberty suppressing hormones are an unsafe treatment.”
“Cass recommends that a different approach is needed, with puberty suppressing hormones and gender affirming hormones being available to young people at different ages and developmental stages alongside a wider range of gender affirming healthcare based on individual need.”
Q: Is the Cass Review Report saying that being trans can be caused by neurodiversity, mental health conditions, or traumatic experiences?
A: “No. Dr. Cass believes that all people should get all of their care needs addressed, and that includes trans people.”
Anti-trans activists waving Cass Report demand a rethink of Gillick & the sacking of anyone who stands up for trans rights, yet Cass says there is not enough evidence on which to make clinical decisions either way. That evidence lies in trans community. Will they be listened to?
Spent a couple of days this week trying to explain to people expressing their gender critical views why I believe they can sometimes be described as anti-trans activists. It all got a bit strung out, so I thought I'd pull my argument together in a single thread 🧵
First some background: On 23/1 Network Rail unveiled a Pride Pillar at London Bridge Station, an art installation aimed at educating people about LGBT+ flags and communities. Its purpose was to celebrate inclusion during LGBT+ history month networkrail.co.uk/stories/london…
Within days, prominent GC campaign group Sex Matters wrote to Network Rail demanding that the flags be removed. A Twitter storm of anti-trans protest was followed by columns in right wing papers denouncing the existence of the pillar.
Watching the Gender Wars doc last night, I was struck by the similarity between the experiences of Kathleen Stock and the trans woman Katy Jon Went. Both testified how they had struggled with their designated sexuality and gender 1/10
Went sought a number of therapies to avoid changing her body, but only when as a last resort she transitioned did she find instant relief. Likewise Stock spoke of how coming out as a lesbian made her comfortable with herself “I felt like a different person” 2/10
Both these women found relief by responding to their feelings, casting doubt on idea that sexuality and gender are ‘hardware’ issues - that biology is immutable and you must conform to whatever equipment nature has provided you with 3/10
Been getting some negative responses to my comment that Chris Williamson is part of the problem that Labour has with anti-semitism, rather than the solution. Here's a thread explaining why I believe this to be the case.
2. For those who don't know, the MP was suspended because of 'a pattern of behaviour' that included his complaint that the Labour Party had been 'too apologetic' about anti-semitism within its ranks
3. A number of those who responded to my post demanded to know what is anti-semitic about this comment. While it is true that CW's words do not contravene the IHRA working definition of anti-semitism, they do express a shocking disregard for Jewish sensitivities.