I fell down the rabbit hole with that last NY Times article. The scientists involved are all part of the wider anti-trans movement, and the methodology is pretty shit.

Some tidbits:

The final Cass Report has been out for less than a week, and already several groups such as Trans Actual[1], Trans Safety Network[2], and Transgender Action Bloc[3] have issued statements pointing out its worrying implications and shaky grounding. And now instead of talking about how the NHS has failed and is still failing trans children through long waiting lists and a lack of certainty, we have to talk about this review which failed to meaningfully address any of those issues.

Our aim here is not to outline the contents of the report in full. Others have produced summaries and highlighted major takeaways, such as in these articles by PinkNews[4] and the Guardian[5]. There has also been reporting on the flawed methodologies[6] underpinning the report’s supplementary research, and how the people involved[7] in conducting the research may have biassed its conclusions. Unfortunately this report has huge implications for what the NHS is going to do next, and what life will be like for trans people, especially children and young people, in the coming years.

We contend that the Cass Review is not fit for purpose. We suggest that it was not merely knocked off course by a flawed methodology. We believe the Cass Report is a deliberate part of a political project aiming to reduce the availability of trans healthcare, possibly eventually in its entirety. It is imperative that we understand this and act on it. The people who made it happen and are taking action based on it must be held accountable. For all these reasons, we believe the Cass Report must be thrown out entirely.

An ‘Independent Review’

The Cass Report has completely failed in its remit as an independent review. The research underpinning the review and its conclusions has fundamental flaws in its methodology which have led it to exclude a huge swathe of the relevant evidence and experience that exists in the field of trans healthcare. The review also has connections to prominent anti-trans figures and groups at a variety of levels, including conversion therapy advocates, who seem to have influenced the report from its rhetoric down to the design of its research.