No. I am dismissing evidence which has been systematically assessed and found to be of very low quality. Who is Dame Professor Hillary Cass?

Hillary Cass is someone with no expertise in the subject who put out a propaganda piece based on vibes, where she dismissed mountains of evidence. You clearly don't understand how medical evidence is graded.

I'm referring to Baroness Cass. Former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health, former chair of the British Academy of Childhood Disability, founder of the Rett Clinic for Children, appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to child health.

Dame Professor Cass lead the systematic review of the UK's child gender medicine program. Her work is world renowned. You can read it for yourself here. #CassReview webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/202503...

Cass had zero experience with gender medicine before being commissioned for her review, which was never peer reviewed. No matter how much you puff her up that doesn't change the facts.

Gender isn't a pathology, so there's no such thing as "gender medicine".

"Everything I disagree with doesn't exist" isn't a sane debatable position. There's a reason the Cass Report isn't peer reviewed, it's because it's based on what people like you want to believe with no basis in tangible reality.

Nice straw man. Things that don't exist don't begin to existence just because you really want them to.

The Cass Report isn't peer reviewed. Cass had no experience dealing with the treatment of trans people before she was commissioned for the review. The facts don't change just because you really want them to.

I wrote extensively about the Cass review, and the significant issues with the document. It is, in my opinion, not a useful basis for treatment recommendations open.substack.com/pub/gidmk/p/...

If your arguments have any merit then I encourage you to submit your work to a journal for peer review. Then I'll read them.

The Cass report was not peer reviewed, and you've read that 🤔

I'm afraid you have been misinformed.

I wish I could take your incorrect statements seriously but alas they are not peer-reviewed and therefore meaningless. Please publish them appropriately so that we can finish this discussion 👍

So, I think you're relying on the technicality here that the final report itself wasn't peer reviewed, but was a synthesis of seven systematic reviews which were peer reviewed. I'm happy to acknowledge that, but your use of it as a "gotcha" is really rather dishonest.

One of the useful things about peer review is it means you have to be able to demonstrate to other scientists that your arguments are systematic and address tangible and significant knowledge gaps in the literature. If you can't show that then why would I read your work?

Hilarious that you're spouting this while also praising the sham Cass Report that wasn't peer reviewed.

I'm afraid you have been misinformed.

The Cass Report is not peer reviewed. Your disdain for facts doesn't change the facts.

Her work is world dismissed because she utterly refused to take any evidence from anyone with any expertise in the subject and specifically looked for people who would affirm her viewpoint, as well as self proclaimed hategroups. It is, fundamentally, bad science.

Chris, have you read Health Nerd's piece? He does address this, and the possible alternatives