#Hilary Cass

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andy L.

Published: Apr 14, 2024

It has now been just little under a week since the publication of the long anticipated NHS independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, the Cass Review.

The review recommends sweeping changes to child services in the NHS, not least the abandonment of what is known as the “affirmation model” and the associated use of puberty blockers and, later, cross-sex hormones. The evidence base could not support the use of such drastic treatments, and this approach was failing to address the complexities of health problems in such children.

Many trans advocacy groups appear to be cautiously welcoming these recommendations. However, there are many who are not and have quickly tried to condemn the review. Within almost hours, “press releases“, tweets and commentaries tried to rubbish the report and included statements that were simply not true. An angry letter from many “academics”, including Andrew Wakefield, has been published. These myths have been subsequently spreading like wildfire.

Here I wish to tackle some of those myths and misrepresentations.

-

Myth 1: 98% of all studies in this area were ignored

Fact

A comprehensive search was performed for all studies addressing the clinical questions under investigation, and over 100 were discovered. All these studies were evaluated for their quality and risk of bias. Only 2% of the studies met the criteria for the highest quality rating, but all high and medium quality (50%+) studies were further analysed to synthesise overall conclusions.

Explanation

The Cass Review aimed to base its recommendations on the comprehensive body of evidence available. While individual studies may demonstrate positive outcomes for the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, the quality of these studies may vary. Therefore, the review sought to assess not only the findings of each study but also the reliability of those findings.

Studies exhibit variability in quality. Quality impacts the reliability of any conclusions that can be drawn. Some may have small sample sizes, while others may involve cohorts that differ from the target patient population. For instance, if a study primarily involves men in their 30s, their experiences may differ significantly from those of teenage girls, who constitute the a primary patient group of interest. Numerous factors can contribute to poor study quality.

Bias is also a big factor. Many people view claims of a biased study as meaning the researchers had ideological or predetermined goals and so might misrepresent their work. That may be true. But that is not what bias means when we evaluate medical trials.

In this case we are interested in statistical bias. This is where the numbers can mislead us in some way. For example, if your study started with lots of patients but many dropped out then statistical bias may creep in as your drop-outs might be the ones with the worst experiences. Your study patients are not on average like all the possible patients.

If then we want to look at a lot papers to find out if a treatment works, we want to be sure that we pay much more attention to those papers that look like they may have less risk of bias or quality issues. The poor quality papers may have positive results that are due to poor study design or execution and not because the treatment works.

The Cass Review team commissioned researchers at York University to search for all relevant papers on childhood use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for treating “gender dysphoria”. The researchers then graded each paper by established methods to determine quality, and then disregarded all low quality papers to help ensure they did not mislead.

The Review states,

The systematic review on interventions to suppress puberty (Taylor et al: Puberty suppression) provides an update to the NICE review (2020a). It identified 50 studies looking at different aspects of gender-related, psychosocial, physiological and cognitive outcomes of puberty suppression. Quality was assessed on a standardised scale. There was one high quality study, 25 moderate quality studies and 24 low quality studies. The low quality studies were excluded from the synthesis of results.

As can be seen, the conclusions that were based on the synthesis of studies only rejected 24 out of 50 studies – less than half. The myth has arisen that the synthesis only included the one high quality study. That is simply untrue.

There were two such literature reviews: the other was for cross-sex hormones. This study found 19 out of 53 studies were low quality and so were not used in synthesis. Only one study was classed as high quality – the rest medium quality and so were used in the analysis.

12 cohort, 9 cross-sectional and 32 pre–post studies were included (n=53). One cohort study was high-quality. Other studies were moderate (n=33) and low-quality (n=19). Synthesis of high and moderate-quality studies showed consistent evidence demonstrating induction of puberty, although with varying feminising/masculinising effects. There was limited evidence regarding gender dysphoria, body satisfaction, psychosocial and cognitive outcomes, and fertility.

Again, it is myth that 98% of studies were discarded. The truth is that over a hundred studies were read and appraised. About half of them were graded to be of too poor quality to reliably include in a synthesis of all the evidence. if you include low quality evidence, your over-all conclusions can be at risk from results that are very unreliable. As they say – GIGO – Garbage In Garbage Out.

Nonetheless, despite analysing the higher quality studies, there was no clear evidence that emerged that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones were safe and effective. The BMJ editorial summed this up perfectly,

One emerging criticism of the Cass review is that it set the methodological bar too high for research to be included in its analysis and discarded too many studies on the basis of quality. In fact, the reality is different: studies in gender medicine fall woefully short in terms of methodological rigour; the methodological bar for gender medicine studies was set too low, generating research findings that are therefore hard to interpret. The methodological quality of research matters because a drug efficacy study in humans with an inappropriate or no control group is a potential breach of research ethics. Offering treatments without an adequate understanding of benefits and harms is unethical. All of this matters even more when the treatments are not trivial; puberty blockers and hormone therapies are major, life altering interventions. Yet this inconclusive and unacceptable evidence base was used to inform influential clinical guidelines, such as those of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which themselves were cascaded into the development of subsequent guidelines internationally.

-

Myth 2: Cass recommended no Trans Healthcare for Under 25s

Fact

The Cass Review does not contain any recommendation or suggestion advocating for the withholding of transgender healthcare until the age of 25, nor does it propose a prohibition on individuals transitioning.

Explanation

This myth appears to be a misreading of one of the recommendations.

The Cass Review expressed concerns regarding the necessity for children to transition to adult service provision at the age of 18, a critical phase in their development and potential treatment. Children were deemed particularly vulnerable during this period, facing potential discontinuity of care as they transitioned to other clinics and care providers. Furthermore, the transition made follow-up of patients more challenging.

Cass then says,

Taking account of all the above issues, a follow-through service continuing up to age 25 would remove the need for transition at this vulnerable time and benefit both this younger population and the adult population. This will have the added benefit in the longer-term of also increasing the capacity of adult provision across the country as more gender services are established.

Cass want to set up continuity of service provision by ensure they remain within the same clinical setting and with the same care providers until they are 25. This says nothing about withdrawing any form of treatment that may be appropriate in the adult care pathway. Cass is explicit in saying her report is making no recommendations as to what that care should look like for over 18s.

It looks the myth has arisen from a bizarre misreading of the phrase “remove the need for transition”. Activists appear to think this means that there should be no “gender transition” whereas it is obvious this is referring to “care transition”.

-

Myth 3: Cass is demanding only Double Blind Randomised Controlled Trials be used as evidence in “Trans Healthcare”

Fact

While it is acknowledged that conducting double-blind randomized controlled trials (DBRCT) for puberty blockers in children would present significant ethical and practical challenges, the Cass Review does not advocate solely for the use of DBRCT trials in making treatment recommendations, nor does it mandate that future trials adhere strictly to such protocols. Rather, the review extensively discusses the necessity for appropriate trial designs that are both ethical and practical, emphasizing the importance of maintaining high methodological quality.

Explanation

Cass goes into great detail explaining the nature of clinical evidence and how that can vary in quality depending on the trial design and how it is implemented and analysed. She sets out why Double Blind Randomised Controlled Trials are the ‘gold standard’ as they minimise the risks of confounding factors misleading you and helping to understand cause and effect, for example. (See Explanatory Box 1 in the Report).

Doctors rely on evidence to guide treatment decisions, which can be discussed with patients to facilitate informed choices considering the known benefits and risks of proposed treatments.

Evidence can range from a doctor’s personal experience to more formal sources. For instance, a doctor may draw on their own extensive experience treating patients, known as ‘Expert Opinion.’ While valuable, this method isn’t foolproof, as historical inaccuracies in medical beliefs have shown.

Consulting other doctors’ experiences, especially if documented in published case reports, can offer additional insight. However, these reports have limitations, such as their inability to establish causality between treatment and outcome. For example, if a patient with a bad back improves after swimming, it’s uncertain whether swimming directly caused the improvement or if the back would have healed naturally.

Further up the hierarchy of clinical evidence are papers that examine cohorts of patients, typically involving multiple case studies with statistical analysis. While offering better evidence, they still have potential biases and limitations.

This illustrates the ‘pyramid of clinical evidence,’ which categorises different types of evidence based on their quality and reliability in informing treatment decisions

The above diagram is published in the Cass Review as part of Explanatory Box 1.

We can see from the report and papers that Cass did not insist that only randomised controlled trials were used to assess the evidence. The York team that conducted the analyses chose a method to asses the quality of studies called the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. This is a method best suited for non RCT trials. Cass has selected an assessment method best suited for the nature of the available evidence rather than taken a dogmatic approach on the need for DBRCTs. The results of this method were discussed about countering Myth 1.

Explainer on the Newcastle Ottawa Scale

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is a tool designed to assess the quality of non-randomized studies, particularly observational studies such as cohort and case-control studies. It provides a structured method for evaluating the risk of bias in these types of studies and has become widely used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The NOS consists of a set of criteria grouped into three main categories: selection of study groups, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest. Each category contains several items, and each item is scored based on predefined criteria. The total score indicates the overall quality of the study, with higher scores indicating lower risk of bias.

This scale is best applied when conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses that include non-randomized studies. By using the NOS, researchers can objectively assess the quality of each study included in their review, allowing them to weigh the evidence appropriately and draw more reliable conclusions.

One of the strengths of the NOS is its flexibility and simplicity. It provides a standardized framework for evaluating study quality, yet it can be adapted to different study designs and research questions. Additionally, the NOS emphasizes key methodological aspects that are crucial for reducing bias in observational studies, such as appropriate selection of study participants and controlling for confounding factors.

Another advantage of the NOS is its widespread use and acceptance in the research community. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses rely on the NOS to assess the quality of included studies, making it easier for researchers to compare and interpret findings across different studies.

As for future studies, Cass makes no demand only DBRCTs are conducted. What is highlighted is at the very least that service providers build a research capacity to fill in the evidence gaps.

The national infrastructure should be put in place to manage data collection and audit and this should be used to drive continuous quality improvement and research in an active learning environment.

-

Myth 4: There were less than 10 detransitioners out of 3499 patients in the Cass study.

Fact

Cass was unable to determine the detransition rate. Although the GIDS audit study recorded fewer than 10 detransitioners, clinics declined to provide information to the review that would have enabled linking a child’s treatment to their adult outcome. The low recorded rates must be due in part to insufficient data availability.

Explanation

Cass says, “The percentage of people treated with hormones who subsequently detransition remains unknown due to the lack of long-term follow-up studies, although there is suggestion that numbers are increasing.”

The reported number are going to be low for a number of reasons, as Cass describes:

Estimates of the percentage of individuals who embark on a medical pathway and subsequently have regrets or detransition are hard to determine from GDC clinic data alone. There are several reasons for this:

Damningly, Cass describes the attempt by the review to establish “data linkage’ between records at the childhood gender clinics and adult services to look at longer term detransition and the clinics refused to cooperate with the Independent Review. The report notes the “…attempts to improve the evidence base have been thwarted by a lack of cooperation from the adult gender services”.

We know from other analyses of the data on detransitioning that the quality of data is exceptionally poor and the actual rates of detransition and regret are unknown. This is especially worrying when older data, such as reported in WPATH 7, suggest natural rates of decrease in dysphoria without treatment are very high.

Gender dysphoria during childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood. Rather, in follow-up studies of prepubertal children (mainly boys) who were referred to clinics for assessment of gender dysphoria, the dysphoria persisted into adulthood for only 6–23% of children.

This suggests that active affirmative treatment may be locking in a trans identity into the majority of children who would otherwise desist with trans ideation and live unmedicated lives.

I shall add more myths as they become spread.

==

It's not so much "myths and misconceptions" as deliberate misinformation. Genderists are scrambling to prop up their faith-based beliefs the same way homeopaths do. Both are fraudulent.

[a-room-of-my-own]

The Be Kind Brigade strikes again.

[the-land-of-women]

x

[eucalyptus-gl0bulus]

watching a tag about something likely to remove a couple basic rights and decencies from some of my friends and watching it swiftly turn into a blocklist.

there are real people's lives at play, and y'all can't stop and think about who could be The Next One to lose rights and be called subhuman trash, and made illegal within a matter of years?

[zinniajones]

The October 28, 2022 joint hearing of the Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine featured a public comment period that suspiciously began with testimony from nine anti-trans detransitioners in a row. Following the hearing, BOM member Zachariah P. Zachariah told the press that he had called these names in an order given by the Department of Health. The newly filed exhibits show that FLDOH was provided with a list of detransitioners and anti-trans parents by attorney Vernadette Broyles, president of the anti-trans Child & Parental Rights Campaign. Broyles is a prolific anti-trans activist and religious zealot who believes trans youth are the property of her deity, as she explained in a January 2020 email to a private working group of anti-trans legislators and advocacy groups.

Read more

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

The anti-trans frenzy is peaking in England this week following the release of a much-anticipated review by Dr. Hillary Cass on transgender care. Many anticipated that the report would serve as a pretext to ban transgender care in England, and it appears to have been crafted to provide just such a rationale. Nations already enacting restrictive laws against transgender individuals will likely use it as justification for further discrimination. In the United States, far-right Christian nationalist groups, including Heritage Foundation (retweeted), Association of Christian Schools International, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, have cited it to support anti-trans legislation they are involved in drafting or lobbying. The Cass Review is an exercise in politics with predetermined conclusions, not science and medicine, and health authorities worldwide should reject its findings.

For those unaware of the Cass Review, and the general situation in England for transgender people, that’s understandable. Transgender people have been struggling to raise alarms there for some time after wait lists to obtain gender affirming care have ballooned in excess of 5 years, which is often prohibitive in obtaining care. After a series of political attacks on transgender people and rising anti-trans sentiment in the country, the NHS commissioned a review and tapped Dr. Hillary Cass, a pediatrician whose list of follows on social media include extremist anti-trans sources such as Transgender Trend (which argues, as is obvious, that being transgender is a “trend”), the LGB Alliance (a LGB group that believes in “dropping the T,” or transgender people), and Graham Linehan (an anti-trans activist and comedian), along with many other noted anti-trans voices. From the outset, there were concerns about her ability to conduct a study neutrally.

Over the course of the review, these concerns intensified. On one occasion, Cass met privately with medical board members selected by Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida to ban transgender care through the Florida Medical Board and appeared to collaborate via email. This only came to light during a contentious trial that revealed the board's intention to ban transgender care from the outset, prior to any review. Cass's involvement in what was essentially a predetermined strike by DeSantis against transgender people raised red flags. On another occasion, her team enlisted a researcher with a history of promoting conversion therapy as a viable option for transgender individuals to handle reviews of evidence on which the report would be based.

Now that the final report is out, it is evident that it was crafted with a predetermined conclusion in mind. The review, highly susceptible to subjectivity, disregarded the body of research on transgender care as not "high quality," a subjective judgment that cannot be trusted as politically unbiased given prior concerns. The Cass Review lends credence to claims that being transgender is "contagious" and that it can influence others around them, claims that have been debunked by dozens of medical organizations. It cites Youtube propagandists that share material from “Gays Against Groomers,” a Republican-aligned anti-transgender organization in the United States. It fearmongers that being transgender might be caused by depression, anxiety, and autism, claims that the American Psychological Association, the world's largest psychological organization, has rejected in a recent policy resolution. It asserts that rates of detransition or desistance are high, citing outdated studies from conversion therapists like Ken Zucker, who reportedly used methods such as withholding wrongly gendered toys in an attempt to "treat" transgender youth. These purportedly high rates of "detransition" or "desistance" are challenged not only by external fact checks but also data within Cass’ own review.

The review cites heavily studies that have been misleadingly used to claim that being trans may be caused by being friends with other trans people. For instance, immediately after making social contagion claims, it references a study of "2,772 adolescents" that purportedly links the question "I wish to be of the opposite sex" to "poor self-concept" and "same-sex attraction." Cass uses this to essentialy claim that many transgender individuals do not know who they are, suggesting that trans individuals may actually just be gay people influenced into being trans by being friends with other trans people—a claim without evidence, often perpetuated by those opposed to trans care. It is important to note that the study Cass cites does not concern trans people; rather, it focuses on cisgender individuals who occasionally wish they were the opposite sex for any reason, including tomboys, feminine gay boys, people experiencing sexism, and more. In that particular study, 19% of participants responded this way, a rate magnitudes higher than the often-estimated 0.5% of transgender individuals. Nevertheless, Cass includes this study as though it applies to transgender individuals, whose desire is not "occasional" but enduring.

Erin Reed's analysis on the transphobic Cass Review is spot-on.

The Cass Review, conducted by "Dr." Hilary Cass, is full of anti-trans junk science.

The report serves as a justification to further restrict trans healthcare in the United Kingdom and worldwide.

[johncory9mm]

“There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media, and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour. This must stop.”

[fiendishneko]

An Over Written Post About Hilary Cass

Hey, so chances are, you folks have probably heard about something in the UK that cam out recently called the Cass Report. Named after the woman behind it, Hilary Cass, the report purports to provide a thorough, impartial evaluation of trans healthcare in the UK, with the intention of being used a guidance going forward.

Now, if you've already heard about the report, you've probably also heard how this this thing has more holes than swiss cheese and seems to be held together by spit, safety pins and seething hatred for us uppity queers. For example, you probably heard how Cass chose to disregard 50 out of 51 studies that support the current model of trans health care, on the grounds that they didn't utilize a "Double Blind study group", something that is recognised by medical professionals to both unethical and untenable in this situation, whilst accepting as evidence four studied that suggested trans healthcare had negligible results, all four of which ALSO did not make use of a double blind.

She also believes the toys children play with are biologically pre-determined. Seriously. Boys like trucks, girls like dollies, basic biology, simple as.

But this overly long post isn't about the report, it's about Hilary Cass the person. Who is this totally impartial, fair and balanced individual?

Well, this exact same Hilary Cass has personally warned the Conservative Minister for Equalities (this is actually very funny, trust me), Kemi Badenoch, of the "risks" of any kind of ban on conversion therapy.

In addition, Hilary Cass is a follower and supporter of far-right anti trans hate group, "Transgender Trend", an astroturfed UK group that was one of many found to have been the receipient of vast amounts of dark money from US Conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom.

"But wait Neko!" I hear you cry, "Us poor Yanks are feeling all left out, is there anything she's done over on our side of the pond?" Well, my hypothetical American reader, there is, how astute of you.

Cass has also worked very closely with Patrick Hunter of the Catholic Medical Association as a consultant on potential anti-trans and anti-LGBT legislation to be implemented by Govenor Ron DeSantis. The CMA is an overtly anti-LGBT organisation and Hunter himself is purportedly part of a group of anti-trans activists working across the United States to undermine and undo LGBT rights, for which he was hand picked by Ron DeSantis for his role in the "Florida Review".

So yeah.

Hilary Cass: A fair, balanced, impartial, hate group following, conversion therapy supporting, fascist policy advising writer of the Cass Report.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Mary McCool

Published: Apr 18, 2024

Scotland's NHS has paused prescribing puberty blockers to children referred by a gender identity clinic.

The Sandyford clinic in Glasgow also said new patients aged 16 or 17 would no longer receive other hormone treatments until they were 18.

It follows a landmark review of gender services for under-18s in England.

Dr Hilary Cass's review said children had been let down by a lack of research and there was "remarkably weak" evidence on medical interventions.

NHS England confirmed it would stop prescribing puberty blockers in March.

Puberty blockers work by suppressing the release of hormones that cause puberty and are often prescribed to children questioning their gender as a way of stopping physical changes such as breast development or facial hair.

Like other parts of the UK, Scotland has seen a rapid rise in the number of young people questioning their identity or experiencing gender dysphoria.

The only specialist service for under-18s is the Sandyford clinic in Glasgow, where people can self-refer or can be referred through their GP.

Figures released to BBC Scotland News under a freedom of information request, showed that at the end of 2023, 1,100 patients were on the waiting list.

As well as referrals for puberty blockers, the Sandyford also refers patients for "gender affirming hormones" such as testosterone or oestrogen to 16 and 17-year-olds.

In the NHS in England, fewer than 100 children - who had already started a prescription - are now taking puberty blockers.

In Scotland, the number is likely to be far smaller.

Following the position taken by NHS England, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) and NHS Lothian deferred starting new patients on the treatment in mid-March.

The Glasgow health board said patients had now been formally notified, however existing patients currently receiving treatment would not be affected.

Dr Emilia Crighton, NHSGCC's director of public health said: "The findings informing the Cass review are important, and we have reviewed the impact on our clinical pathways.

"The next step from here is to work with the Scottish government and academic partners to generate evidence that enables us to deliver safe care for our patients."

Review findings 'considered'

Scottish Health Secretary Neil Gray welcomed the decision, saying the government and health boards are considering the recommendations of the Cass review.

He said: "We have been clear it is for clinicians and health boards to make decisions about clinical pathways, and that these decisions should be made carefully and based on the best evidence available.

"This is what both health boards have done and their position is supported by the chief medical officer.

"More broadly, the Cass review's final report and findings are being closely considered by both the Scottish government and health boards, in the context of how such healthcare can be best delivered in Scotland."

Vic Valentine, of Scottish Trans and the Equality Network, said pausing puberty blockers was the wrong decision and said it would "harm trans children and young people".

A statement said: "This decision has been taken within the context where the reality of trans people's experiences and lives is questioned almost daily in some of the media and some political circles.

"This makes us worry that the decision has been influenced by that context rather than solely through consideration of the best interests of trans children and young people."

Scottish Conservative deputy leader Meghan Gallacher said the decision was "long overdue" and accused the government of leaking the news to the press "before having the decency to update parliament".

She called for an urgent ministerial statement so MSPs had a chance to ask questions on the matter.

She said: "I'm beyond fed up with this lackadaisical approach to gender care. They are failing children and young people."

--

==

"Social Murder Charter" is the best band name ever.

[tapakah0]

[weewoow-20706030]

Bruce is the only member of the batfam that has no tolerance for spice. Dick grew up in a travelling circus, he has had food from all over the world. Jason grew up on the street, he ate what he could get. Tim's parents went all around the world, and had food and recipes from all around the world, whenever they were home Janet would make exotic meals. Damian grew up with Talia, he grew up on middle eastern food. But Bruce? He grew up on Alfred's British ass cooking, he thinks pepper has 'a little kick'.

[isas-bathbombs]

donna’s route: in summary

[coochiequeens]

The tide is turning for the TQ+. And they have no one to blame but themselves

Wes Streeting last night admitted he had been wrong to say that “trans women are women” amid a major Labour row over the Cass review into NHS gender care.

The shadow health secretary said the controversial LGBT rights group Stonewall – where he used to work – had got it wrong with its slogan.

In a major about-turn for the party, he told The Sun that he now admitted “there are lots of complexities” on the trans issue but that he was prepared to take criticism “on the chin”.

It came as Labour became embroiled in another trans row after Mr Streeting welcomed the review and pledged to implement it in full.

The shadow health secretary said the report raised “some serious concerns that are pretty scandalous”.

But Rosie Duffield, a Labour MP placed under investigation by the party last year for campaigning against gender ideology, pointed out that women who had exposed the scandal had been “blanked, sidelined and dismissed” by male leaders simply for speaking up.

Last night Mr Streeting was asked on The Sun’s Never Mind The Ballots programme whether he stood by Stonewall’s claim that “trans women are women, get over it”, he admitted: “No.”

He added: “To the extent that – and I say this with some self-criticism and reflection – if you’d asked me a few years ago, on this topic, I would have said trans men are men, trans women are women. Some people are trans, get over it. Let’s move on. This is all blown out of proportion.

“And now I sort of sit and reflect and think actually, there are lots of complexities.”

He went on: “I take the criticism on the chin. And at the same time, I also think that there’s been some absolutely ugly rhetoric directed towards trans people who are at the wrong end of all of statistics on hate crime, on self harm, suicide, mental health.”

Labour has long been divided on trans issues and has been accused of flip-flopping on its stance in recent years.

The party no longer has plans to bring in self-ID for trans people, and Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, has rowed back from saying “trans women are women”, and now states that a woman is an “adult female” and that 99.9 per cent of them do not have a penis.

Mr Streeting’s comments angered the Labour Left. The Corbynite group Momentum tweeted: “The Cass review ignored dozens of scientific studies, coming to a harmful conclusion of limiting access to gender-affirming care for trans youth.

“Anti-trans campaigners have celebrated it. So it’s highly disappointing that Labour’s leadership is welcoming it unreservedly.”

Yesterday, feminist Julie Bindel demanded an apology from Mr Streeting for failing to support her gender-critical views when he was president of the National Union of Students.

Earlier this year, the party dropped a year-long investigation into a complaint that Ms Duffield had been transphobic for liking a tweet by Father Ted creator Graham Linehan, who is now a gender-critical campaigner.

However, despite the changes, critics of the Labour leadership say gender-critical women in the party continue to be sidelined or not selected.

Wes Streeting says the Cass report raised 'some serious concerns that are pretty scandalous' CREDIT: Jay Williams

The Cass review, published on Wednesday, said much of the evidence for gender medicine was flimsy and that drugs such as puberty blockers should be used with extreme caution as children who think they are trans may have mental health problems.

Dr Hilary Cass, the paediatrician behind the report, said some NHS gender clinics refused to comment on requests for information.

On Never Mind the Ballots, Mr Streeting said: “I think we’ve got to ask ourselves why is it that we’ve seen medical interventions that have been given on the basis of very weak evidence?

“How is it that clinicians have been silenced or afraid to come forward? Why is it that a group of young people who are extremely vulnerable are waiting years to access treatment?

“I think there’s plenty of blame to go around. I’m pretty angry actually that despite this review having been commissioned there are some NHS trusts that refused to co-operate.

“And I want to send a clear message to them that under a Labour government there’ll be accountability for that, you’re not going to get away with it. And I want to work constructively with the Government to try to get this right.”

Earlier, he had tweeted: “Children’s healthcare should always be led by evidence and children’s welfare, free from culture wars…

“The Government must now immediately act, but if they do not, the next Labour government will work to implement the expert recommendations of the Cass review, to ensure that young people are receiving appropriate and high-quality care.”

This prompted Ms Duffield to retweet the statement, with the message: “To the many women blanked, sidelined, dismissed by male leaders when speaking up and exposing this for years.”

And Ms Bindel, a former Labour Party member, wrote: “Glad to see you are now openly critical of the gender ideology that led to the atrocities against children outlined in the Cass report.

“I am open to accepting an apology from you. In 2008, when you were NUS president, I was no-platformed alongside five fascist groups for ‘transphobia’.

“I contacted you and asked for your help. You gave none. I asked you to condemn those that had orchestrated the no-platforming, and you refused.

“Have you any idea of the reputational damage this caused me? How it gave others permission to no-platform, denounce and defame me?

“How it meant that I could be slandered by other organisations, and so many, many universities around the UK and elsewhere? If this sounds bitter then good, because I am.”

To this message, Ms Duffield said: “Thank you for leading us all here Julie. Without you, most of us wouldn’t have had a clue what had been happening to children who were far too young to have the critical faculties or agency to consent.”

Addressing Ms Bindel’s accusation, Mr Streeting replied: “From memory (16 years on, so correct me if I’m wrong!) I replied to confirm that you weren’t on NUS’ no platform policy and as this was in relation to a motion passed by the autonomous women’s campaign I was not empowered to overturn it (not least as a male president!).”

[tanglepelt]

Dc x dp idea 19

Danny outs himself and Vlad to Bruce Wayne at a gala. Why because he thinks Bruce is Batman’s sugar daddy. Best way to get a message to him obviously. Turns out he didn’t have to Jazz was at the gala and punched Vlad straight in the face.

So vlad finally gives up on Maddie. Maybe she found out he was half ghost and tried to kill him not really too important. Vlad is a sore loser

Meaning he kills Maddie, jack, and Danny’s friends to isolate him. Jazz is away at Gotham U and Vlad doesn’t bother to check that everyone was there when he killed them.

Danny is trapped at vlad manors like how sam was with the tiara. Anyone who may not know or recall the episode a bs princess contest was hosted sam won, weirdo with a castle (much like vlad) decided to trap her with a magic crown. She just couldn’t leave the castle (now like Danny)

Jazz thinks Danny died in the explosion. Vlad paid the custody lawyers and cops hush money as to not alert anyone Danny was alive. He needed to keep his little badger “safe”.

Vlad now has no one to stop him and has his perfect son in his grasps. He turns to world domination.

Time passes and word of Vlads adoptive son gets out. Both get invited to many galas. Danny has no say in anything and is just trying to get the damn watch off. Vlad only agree to go to the Wayne’s gala as he had never been invited before.

After a few safety precautions. Sending his ghost animals ahead to essentially hold the rich hostage. Danny would behave if it meant keep others safe after all. So the watch gets taken off for a shocker and way to prevent him from using his powers for the trip to Gotham.

Danny is just thinking of Tucker’s theory that Bruce is Batman’s sugar daddy. Sam just thought he was Batman.

So Danny writes a note addressed to Bruce.

Basically says hey vlad is plasmius. He’s a fruitloop killed my family and friends to adopt me. Please help. Btw vlad rigged the gala with ghost in case i tried anything. He has me and them connected to the totally secret remote in his front pocket. Shocks me and makes the animals attack. Don’t be mean to them. He experimented on my animal friends. So like don’t be suspicious and please pass this on to batman. Pretty sure your his sugar daddy Hence the note to you.

He does manage to pass the note on. Bruce and his kids all kinda look at him in shock.

Only then does jazz walk in with some dude with a white streak. She looked at him then vlad. Then him again. Vlad was sweating. Danny was grinning.

She then immediately decks him and tackels vlad. All while Bruce reads the note.

Dick and Jason are now involved. Danny is yelling about the remote. It goes flying Damian catches it. The ghost animals appear. Danny tells which button to click. Damian frees the ghost animals and danny from there collars or in Danny’s case watch.

[art-question-mark]

“Most of all, he listened for Jyn. He listened for her struggles. He listened for her voice. He tried to determine which steady tread on the sand was hers.

For all Cassian heard, she might have vanished from the face of Jedha.

She dominated his thinking nonetheless. Cassian believed neither pity nor pragmatism explained it.”

-Rogue One Novelisation by Alexander Freed