The UK trans community is concerned and dismayed that some Lib Dem parliamentarians seem to be excessively supporting the Cass review.
The Cass review might superficially appear to be reasonable and balanced, and few of us will closely read all 388 pages in order to form a different view than we are hearing from our broadly anti-trans media. But from a transgender perspective the signs of subtly biased language are clear from the start. Firstly, in the Chair’s Foreword:
“I have faced criticism for engaging with groups and individuals who take a social justice approach and advocate for gender affirmation, and have equally been criticised for involving groups and individuals who urge more caution.”
Why is caution ascribed only to the anti-trans side? In fact, caution is a major motivation for the pro-trans side, given the levels of anxiety and depression that can be experienced by those with gender dysphoria, reaching in some cases to suicidal thoughts.
The Foreword also introduces transition and detransition on an apparently equal footing. Yet in reality, all my experience points to detransition cases being a tiny fraction, with the vast majority of transitioners feeling happier as a result. Data backs this up with <1% of those regretting undergoing Gender Affirming Surgeries, making it among the least regretted surgeries carried out.
Another surprising note, from very early on in the review, is how it bemoans the “culture war” context and “toxicity” and exhorts for this to stop. Certainly we are in the midst of a culture war, and on more fronts than just transgender awareness, and that is sad and unfortunate, but why would this affect a scientific process such as the Cass review purports to describe? Surely, a scientific process would only accept input from experts presenting their views on the basis of evidence, and would simply discount anyone arguing a culture war point of view or exhibiting toxicity?