Comments by "ItCouldBe Lupus" (@itcouldbelupus2842) on "Pod Save the World" channel.

  1. 123
  2. 68
  3. 60
  4. 60
  5. 54
  6. 53
  7. 44
  8. 43
  9. 38
  10. 36
  11. 34
  12. 32
  13. 31
  14. 26
  15. 25
  16. 25
  17. 24
  18. 22
  19. 22
  20. 21
  21. 19
  22.  @nickthepostpunk5766    The Cass review did throw out 98% of the studies citing this is because they weren't double blind. Even thou it's unethical to do double blind studies on hormone treatment and on children. Except for a handful of studies that weren't double blind but showed inconclusive or negative results because of puberty blockers, those were acceptable for some completely unspecified reason. It also used a bad study by Littman which has been largely discredited by the scientific community and had to be revised heavily. The Cass review has been torn to shreds for bad science and it's been highlighted how Cass and most of the people who wrote it, including the only former Tavistock employee involved, have strong anti trans bias and direct links to hate groups and movements that are anti T. Cass helped the Desantis administration write the Florida review which was used to push anti trans legislation and banning care and has been heavily criticised by human rights groups. She also has come out in support against a ban on conversion therapy. I haven't fallen for misinformation Nick, you have. The Cass review is an invalid paper that could never be published in any journal because it wouldn't pass peer review. The only people who are taking it seriously are Tory politicians, who are the ones who ordered the review and hand picked Cass, and labour and talking head journalists at places like the BBC and so on. I could spend hours getting into this further, or I could just recommend some articles, papers, or videos that go in depth debunking it. Which I'm sure you will want to see since you don't have anti trans bias as you've insisted a few times and I believe you because you've been arguing in good faith as far as I can tell. Since you just have valid concerns I'm sure you will want to verify whether it's misinformation or not.
    18
  23.  @nickthepostpunk5766  The UK is considered a hostile country for trans people especially for trans children (Madrigal-Borloz, Citation2023). Trans healthcare under the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has long been criticized for causing harm to trans people, with reports of pathologization, coercion and harm in NHS healthcare services (Horton, Citation2022d, Citation2022a; Pearce, Citation2018). Since the launch of the Cass Review in 2020, the situation for trans children in the UK has continued to decline (Madrigal-Borloz, Citation2023). In 2022 the UK Minister for Health called for clinicians to look for evidence of “what has caused children to be trans,” citing the Cass Review to claim that “identifying as trans” is likely to be a response to “child sex abuse” (Milton, Citation2022). The Cass Review was cited by the British government to justify plans to exclude trans people from legislation to ban conversion therapy (British Psychological Society, Citation2022) Despite the incredibly strict requirements for existing research to be considered in the systematic reviews, the final report trades freely in citations of poor quality or/and politically motivated work, and even incorrectly cites literature in order to support their desired outcome. The report repeatedly cites Ken Zucker (1985)[11] to support its assertions about the number of people who regret transition. Zucker is widely known for his heavily criticised claim that 80% of young people ‘desist’ from being trans, as well as his use of practices likened to conversion therapy. They back this up with Thomas Steensma’s (2013)[12] study on factors associated with desistance and persistence. Steensma has clarified publicly that the study should not be used to calculate rates of persistence or desistance[13], as its research design (aimed at studying characteristics of persisting trans patients) risks inflating the number of desisters. The Cass Report uses it to do just this several times. If I give you the titles of the papers these quotes are from will you go read them?
    17
  24. 16
  25. 15
  26. 15
  27. 15
  28. 14
  29. 14
  30. 14
  31. 13
  32. 13
  33. 13
  34. 13
  35. 12
  36. 12
  37. 12
  38. 12
  39. 11
  40. 11
  41. 11
  42. 10
  43. 10
  44. 10
  45. 10
  46. 10
  47. 10
  48. 8
  49. 8
  50. 8