Cass Report AI Images: Patients Aren’t Poster Children

I’ve covered the Cass Report, a landmark independent review commissioned by U.K.’s National Health Service on gender-related medical care for minors and young adults. The Cass Report is a devastating exposé: It confirms that previous studies on the topic are of “poor quality” and there is “very limited evidence on the longer-term outcomes” associated with medicalized transition. Hillary Cass, who led the review, is firm in her introduction: “The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.” But perhaps the significance of the Cass Report is what it does, not what it says; the NHS has already implemented some of the recommendations and initiated investigations into clinics that offered gender-related treatments.

Unsurprisingly, the activists who chanted “trust the science” lacked well-conducted studies and evidence to justify their support for “gender-affirming care”; the people who couldn’t provide robust arguments resorted to demonizing anyone who doubted their conclusions. Given the absence of data to refute the substance of the Cass Report, activists are trying to discredit the review because of its images.

About the Author

Abigail Anthony

Abigail Anthony is a staff writer at National Review.

Featured Tags

Manage following

Health Care

NHS

I’ve covered the Cass Report, a landmark independent review commissioned by U.K.’s National Health Service on gender-related medical care for minors and young adults. The Cass Report is a devastating exposé: It confirms that previous studies on the topic are of “poor quality” and there is “very limited evidence on the longer-term outcomes” associated with medicalized transition. Hillary Cass, who led the review, is firm in her introduction: “The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.” But perhaps the significance of the Cass Report is what it does, not what it says; the NHS has already implemented some of the recommendations and initiated investigations into clinics that offered gender-related treatments.

Unsurprisingly, the activists who chanted “trust the science” lacked well-conducted studies and evidence to justify their support for “gender-affirming care”; the people who couldn’t provide robust arguments resorted to demonizing anyone who doubted their conclusions. Given the absence of data to refute the substance of the Cass Report, activists are trying to discredit the review because of its images.