This article overlaps with the more discursive and reactive set of #CassFlawsbsky.app/profile/lous...
Speaking of inaccurate citations, I noticed that the Cass Review incorrectly cites the study as Hewitt et al. but Hewitt is not lead author on any of the studies, it's Taylor et al. Sloppy, but largely inconsequential except as another example of #CassFlaws
Another charge the Cass Review has sparked is that all the professional guidelines cite each other, implying a circularity to their citations. A moment's thought reveals this as ridiculous. Of course they do, and should, cite each other. They're part of the literature on trans health. #CassFlaws
Biological and psychosocial evidence in the Cass Review: A critical commentary (Spoiler alert, they have wildly varying standards of evidence for their claims and recommendations) #CassFlawsosf.io/preprints/so...
I am sure there is much I have missed, and much more buried in the minutiae of the appendices. But hopefully these five threads, in flagging up some obvious #CassFlaws, have helped to show how so many of its conclusions are simply predicated on nonsense. Thanks for making it to the end.
A fifth thread on #CassFlaws
A fourth thread looking at #CassFlaws
A third thread looking at #CassFlaws