Ian Court@IanCour70323568
Why has the Cass Report created the context for NHS supplied, puberty blockers to be given to as many as 6,000, confused and distressed children in 2025, under the guise of ‘clinical trials’?
And why are we not talking about this, as it renders the U.K. supposed ‘ban’ on puberty blockers, meaningless?
We already know the drugs are harmful, are of no evidenced benefit and lock children in to profound, irreversible harm for cosmetic effects, in pursuit of an impossible goal. Over 300 children have been left on them since the ‘ban’ came into effect, so a ‘test’ group has already been (unethically, I would argue) established. Why add to that number?
We really needed Cass to be a meta analysis of what we refer to as ‘trans’, the evidence for it being a social contagion, for example, within the medical profession itself.
But Cass obviously believes in the efficacy of ‘gender affirming care’ for adults and I think clearly revealed in her 2024 Woman’s Hour interview (where she described side effects as ‘trivial’) that she believes that the fault lines lie in extant, diagnostic techniques for a ‘difficult to read’ child and adolescent cohort. Not in the notion of ‘gender identity’ itself or the treatment pathways for adults; she is, after all, happy to use all the nonsense terms employed by gender identity activists, such as ‘sex assigned at birth’ and ‘non- binary’
Hence, post Cass, the children on puberty blockers have been left on them (why, when we know they are dangerous?) and in her own words, unlimited numbers of children can be entered into the ‘clinical trials’. The more the better.
My concern is that all that Cass is establishing, is that a spoonful of talk therapy makes the gender affirming medicine, go down.
I really hope I am wrong but I can’t see that Cass is actually banning puberty blockers or questioning any of the basic tenets of ‘gender identity’.
I encourage everyone to listen to Cass’ Woman’s Hour interview - why does she say, for example, that, as the average age of children at The Tavistock GIDS going onto puberty blockers was 15 - it would have been better for them to go straight onto cross sex hormones?
‘Better’? My chin was on the floor at that point.
The promotion of subjective experience over empirical evidence and objective reality, the acceptance of physical harm as a potentially valid treatment for psychological distress - just so long as you can find the right children to do it to - Cass doesn’t address either of these issues. Perhaps because they are ideological positions already protected by law, endorsed by adult services, perhaps because she has friends or relatives or work colleagues with children, who want to lie about their sex..?
So many in our NHS do.
Over four years, Cass really needed to address just two questions.
Have children been harmed?
Who is responsible?
With thousands of children seeking help via the new children and adolescent gender clinics, surely she should be concerned that the personnel operating the new services will, as likely as not, be activists? What measures will be taken to ensure that this doesn’t happen, especially if the basic premise of ‘gendered souls’ being trapped in the ‘wrong body’, requiring chemical and surgical ‘correction’, is accepted by her?
I increasingly think that only litigation, starting in the USA, by those profoundly harmed (particularly as children) by this homophobic and misogynistic madness, will end it. We can’t look to our child safeguarding institutions to do that job - the recent Charity Commission report into Mermaids, proves it.
The Cass Report, tragically, proves it.
I really want to be wrong but we are fast approaching the time when the NHS will be announcing its decision to recommence medical experimentation on the bodies of healthy children.
Shocking.
