-
I fucking hope so too. but I think the rhetoric is them telling us who they are. hope I'm wrong, don't think I am, not sure it matters, it's still transphobic.
Regarding Cass - this headline nails it
also worth noting that no trans people were consulted for the report.
there's lots of stuff out there that's a more academic or evidence based take down of it such as
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249
this isn't directly about the Cass report, but there is a section on it and the whole things a pretty interesting watch anyway (long though)
https://youtu.be/QLWKYTxLYT4?si=_cxlMWUB8qlzVylK
finally it's worth noting that puberty blockers have been prescribed to kids with precocious puberty for over 30 years, so there's plenty of data on its long term effects despite what we're told.
You are reading a single comment by @chickenbones and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
chickenbones
I think the points @chickenbones made are fair to be honest, but I still think if you separate rhetoric from policy Labour is actually pretty sensible and now the driver for all the transphobia and culture war shit (the Tory government) is gone I hope it will become increasingly supportive of trans people. If it doesn't it will be one of the issues that could see me defect to the Greens if I'm honest.
The Cass Review is difficult though. It's supposed to be an evidence based report. It's hard for sensible politicians to oppose evidence based material and generally we don't want them to do that because it means prioritising ideology over logic.
However, while I haven't read the report, my impression is that it's not exactly trans friendly. It has been characterised by some as having serious failings around methodology, science, and potential bias.
It's a difficult one because if Starmer threw an 'evidence based report' on trans stuff in the bin the Mail would have a field day.