The Cass Report, which made numerous recommendations for restructuring gender-affirming care for transgender youth in England and Wales, faces significant criticism for its alleged bias and flawed methodology. A report published in the New England Journal of Medicine emphasizes that the review deviated from established standards and was not subject to expert verification. Critics, including the British Medical Association, have expressed concern that the report ignored crucial evidence regarding puberty blockers, raising questions about the motivations and biases of those involved in its preparation.
The review's departure from the evidentiary and procedural standards of medical law, policy and practice can be understood best in the context of the history of leveraging medicine to police gender norms.
Indeed... if the US government issued a report in a similar manner, it would be violating federal law... We know Cass chaired the review, but observers must speculate about who else participated in the manuscript's drafting.
Collection
[
|
...
]