The government is trying to force hospitals to prioritise a c!s person's desire not to be in a room with a trans person over a trans person's medical safety. People in private rooms are less visible to staff. This is putting c!s comfort over trans safety.

fyi. i put one tweet on top of the other to show why the guy got censored in case it wasn’t obvious. neither him nor elon are replying to other.

come on

this is wild. guy tweets about “confidence intervals”. gets censored for hate speech.

Altogether, I don’t believe the preprint truly says anything that has not been said before, but it bears repeating, as the Cass Review is still treated as an unbiased, evidence-based document, when it would not pass a simple peer-review process. 15/15

Lastly, this is not an exhaustive commentary on the Review, but focuses on specific biological and psychosocial claims. However, many other compelling criticisms have been raised, and should be considered, see for example this excellent article: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10… 14/15

It also sets a dangerous precedent for future independent reviews; seemingly little to no evidence is needed to make recommendations that affect a large group of vulnerable people. 13/15

Highlighted in the preprint and this thread are just few issue with the scientific rigour and evidence of the Cass Review. Overall it begs the question why a review of such low scientific quality is allowed to guide UK healthcare policy. 12/15

The cited study, as well as another study on detransitioners, shows recruitment bias, and the Cass Review fails address this, or to cite another much larger recent study on detransitioners. 11/15

The topic of detransitioners is discussed, where the review cites a study by Littman. Littman is most well-known for the popularization of the (unscientific) term ROGD, in a highly criticised study, which required a substantial correction after publication. 10/15

Despite this, the Cass Review reports several of the potential negative effects as concerns, while reporting that the positive effects are not convincing enough, based on evidence of similar strength. 9/15

An important point of the Review is the effects of puberty blockers and hormone treatment. The main takeaway from the independent reviews it that there is very little convincing evident on both the positive and negative effects of puberty blockers and hormone treatment. 8/15