Active discussions
My feed Premium
Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

OP posts:
Report
OvaHere · 03/07/2024 09:59

This is a link to the Yale report
https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/report-addresses-key-issues-legal-battles-over-gender-affirming-health-care

It was written by an activist group within Yale called 'The Integrity Project'
https://law.yale.edu/centers-workshops/integrity-project

"Underserved and marginalized people are harmed most by the absence of sound science in law. U.S. states recently have adopted a number of measures based on scientific misinformation, in reproductive health, gender-affirming care and HIV prevention. The Integrity Project acts quickly to correct the scientific record and oppose these harmful measures."

transgender flags in a row on grass

Report Addresses Key Issues in Legal Battles over Gender-Affirming Health Care

A new report from The Integrity Project provides an evidence-based critique of a recent independent review that has become central to U.S. litigation regarding health care for transgender youth.

https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/report-addresses-key-issues-legal-battles-over-gender-affirming-health-care

Report
OvaHere · 03/07/2024 10:02

Further info about their work.

In the face of a recent unprecedented wave of state legislation that has targeted the well-being of gender-expansive youth, faculty members from the Yale Law School, Child Study Center, Department of Psychiatry, and Department of Pediatrics came together to synthesize and disseminate scientific and legal knowledge in support of LGBTQ+ youth and their families.
Along with exclusionary measures in school and in sports, new laws have sought to deny access to well-established, lifesaving medical care. During the first half of 2022 alone, 20 states have introduced medical bans with worsening punishments directed towards healthcare providers and parents. The new laws criminalize standard medical care and interfere in relationships among providers and families, vetoing shared healthcare decisions.
In our cross-departmental and interdisciplinary work, we marshal scientific and legal knowledge to lay bare the misinformation used to justify these medical bans. Our team includes specialists in law, child psychology, child and adolescent psychiatry, pediatric endocrinology, and adolescent medicine. Our detailed, evidence-based reports inform litigators, policymakers, journalists, and medical professionals with a common language that upholds the integrity of science, law and public policy. Joining us are colleagues nationwide, including Dr. Laura Kuper (University of Texas Southwestern) and Dr. Hussein Abdul-Latif (University of Alabama Birmingham).

Report
teawamutu · 03/07/2024 10:04

Interesting. Despite the self-declared remit they seem only to have written about the importance of medically transing children.

OP posts:
Report
UtopiaPlanitia · 03/07/2024 10:08

Reasoned argument from evidence is part of the scientific method but I feel that the American attempts to refute the findings of the Cass Report have failed to reach that standard - they often read as ideologically motivated attempts to besmirch the research done by the Cass Review which is a great pity because the healthcare of children deserves better than ideology-based treatments.

Report
OvaHere · 03/07/2024 10:09

teawamutu · 03/07/2024 10:04

Interesting. Despite the self-declared remit they seem only to have written about the importance of medically transing children.

Yes.

All their work is about 'gender affirming care' for minors. I wonder who they get funding from?

law.yale.edu/centers-workshops/integrity-project/publications

Report
MattDamon · 03/07/2024 10:11

If you google each of the names of the project contributors and the word 'trans', every single one of them is making money off of being a trans 'expert' in their field.

Hugely embarrassing for Yale to be associated with such a biased, pre-determined outcome.

Report
popeydokey · 03/07/2024 10:13

These people seem absolutely intent on telling children there is a certain type of body you should have if you feel you are a boy, or a girl. Why can't a boy just be a "boy" in a female body? Doesn't that go against gender inclusivity?

How are they not called TERFs etc?

Report
Gettingmadderallthetime · 03/07/2024 10:14

The Alabama case has cited CASS a lot and I assume all the other states defending action in this area will too, so its not surprising that activists will try to undermine it. I don't think that they credibly can. In fact from what I am seeing the case for affirming is getting weaker and weaker.

Report
ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 03/07/2024 10:20

McFadden was on R4 this morning and was asked about how Labour would work with a certain political stripe if elected in France on immigration. Correctly, he said it's for other countries to elect their leaders, and they would have to work with whoever the French elect.

Well, in this country, our politicians commissioned an expert review. And it was delivered. And accepted by the Tories and (largely by) Labour. It was also discussed in Parliament, where we saw the more in depth views.

I'm pretty sure we could have plenty to say about how they run their affairs, especially where health is concerned (!). But why would we? Perhaps the US academics should focus a bit more on their own country rather than attacking ours.

Report
LaundryOnTheLine · 03/07/2024 10:22

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines - previously banned poster.

UpThePankhurst · 03/07/2024 10:26

Worth looking at how Cass explained the raised suggested 'problems' with the report to the HoC. And then looking at the groups who raise these problems, and why the report is so very inconvenient to them.

Report
AstonUniversityDataScrapingDepartment · 03/07/2024 13:58

Are these legal scholars criticising a clinical research process?

I would not consult a paediatrician if I had a legal problem. And I would not take my child to a lawyer to assess a clinical problem.

Clinical academics are (usually) not qualified to review legal research methods. Legal academics are (usually) not qualified to review clinical research methods. (“Usually” because there are people who are both legally and clinically qualified.)

Report
Duckyfondant · 03/07/2024 14:31

AstonUniversityDataScrapingDepartment · 03/07/2024 13:58

Are these legal scholars criticising a clinical research process?

I would not consult a paediatrician if I had a legal problem. And I would not take my child to a lawyer to assess a clinical problem.

Clinical academics are (usually) not qualified to review legal research methods. Legal academics are (usually) not qualified to review clinical research methods. (“Usually” because there are people who are both legally and clinically qualified.)

Yes, this. There's not a great crossover.

Report
Littlepinkstarsbyradish · 03/07/2024 16:49

UpThePankhurst · 03/07/2024 10:26

Worth looking at how Cass explained the raised suggested 'problems' with the report to the HoC. And then looking at the groups who raise these problems, and why the report is so very inconvenient to them.

i mean... thats how reviews work though? you identify weaknesses or areas in your work with less rigor, and then groups also identify those areas because they are literally the weakest areas?

Report
MrsOvertonsWindow · 04/07/2024 06:27

The determination of these people to to influence children well below the age of consent is very telling. It can only be successful if responsible adults and institutions collude in removing / eroding the safeguarding of children.
When adults hold the line and insist that children must be protected from age inappropriate sexualised issues and that they must not make decisions impacting on their long term future until they are able to give informed consent, children remain safe.

There are no groups of children that society exempts from safeguarding. Long overdue for trans activists and their allies to understand this.

Report
ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 04/07/2024 07:04

UtopiaPlanitia · 04/07/2024 03:03

Article of interest to the thread:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/anger-over-ucus-anti-scientific-fight-against-cass-review

Archive version for non-subscribers:
https://archive.ph/L6eP8

Thanks for the access to this. Highly concerning stuff. I really wonder what the point of Uni is if they can't produce people able to sit down and read, and critically engage with a text.

Report
Helleofabore · 04/07/2024 07:38

UtopiaPlanitia · 04/07/2024 03:03

Article of interest to the thread:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/anger-over-ucus-anti-scientific-fight-against-cass-review

Archive version for non-subscribers:
https://archive.ph/L6eP8

Thanks Utopia. The stance from the UCU is very interesting, isn’t it. It shows an organisation that has prioritised one particular group. It does not bode well for the quality of work done by universities in the UK.

The UCU, as it seems other organisations, are parroting that line of ‘too high a standard’ while ignoring the words directly from Dr Cass that she did indeed consider the studies and had not rejected them. She just put higher reliance on studies that were more rigorous.

The parroting of that one sentiment, while never producing a very clear analysis on exactly where she apparently was incorrect, is very concerning. Have I missed the very clear and detailed analysis that refutes her findings on the point of weak evidence? I have not been around much lately.

Report
UtopiaPlanitia · 04/07/2024 13:27

It seems to be orthodoxy among activists that Cass did a bad job because the report didn’t find in favour of PB and transitioning children - the activists all quote each other saying the Cass Review did a bad job but I haven’t seen any serious medical bodies disagreeing with the findings by means of reasoned argument from evidence.

Report
UpThePankhurst · 04/07/2024 14:11

Interesting to consider one of the dysfunctional thinking patterns in people, with a key one being: it isn't true or over unless I like and agree with what you said. Often seen in conversations where you explain and explain and explain but it doesn't go in due to incapacity to accept disliked/unwanted information.

It doesn't matter that it's true/ crucial/ evidence of harm, it's a case of 'me no likey'.

Report
AlisonDonut · 04/07/2024 14:22

Surely the solution to a report stating there was no evidence to suggest a benefit would be to provide the studies showing the evidence of a benefit?

Report
Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/07/2024 14:30

They can't provide that evidence - their goal is to undermine any criticism that they don't have it.

Report
Shortshriftandlethal · 04/07/2024 14:36

It became apparent that WPATH 'experts' were not even aware what a 'systematic review' was, nor what entailed.

Report

Mumsnet Weekly Hot Threads

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Woman smiling and making heart symbol with her hands

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 04/07/2024 14:37

American activists need to stay in their damn lane.

Report
Hairyesterdaygonetoday · 04/07/2024 16:25

UtopiaPlanitia · 04/07/2024 03:03

Article of interest to the thread:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/anger-over-ucus-anti-scientific-fight-against-cass-review

Archive version for non-subscribers:
https://archive.ph/L6eP8

Embarrassing for Yale, which is generally considered reputable, to have its name attached to this ideological nonsense.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.