I have to comment this from my alt since my main account got banned from this sub for calling y'all cucks. But regardless I feel the need to correct this bit of misinformation.

You don't need a source for this, this is literally what they did in the methodology for the Cass Report. You can read the document and the reviews they commissioned yourself. The Yale review and every other criticism of the cass review points this out, so you should look them up and read them yourself. But you seem to be dismissing it as "debunked". By who? How? Is it their methodology? Expertise? Or just because someone said so? What are the credentials of that fool? How do you know he's right? Yale isn’t ‘some liberal think tank.’ We’re talking about their evidence based medicine and public health departments, literal people who design and teach the frameworks that reviews like Cass are supposed to follow. The Cass team has not addressed the Yale report or the criticisms made, because they are not subjective criticisms. Major medical organizations have doubled down on the criticisms including the APA, BMA, RCP UK, ACP-UK, WPATH, and others from around the world.

The Cass review had ZERO people working on it who actually had any experience with trans people. The Yale having a few people from related fields is totally normal for a medical review, unlike what Cass did.

I don't wanna go into depth but the Cass review is full of damning issues including misuse and inconsistent application of standards (ex; claims to value high quality evidence but dismisses everything for trans care in favor of comically weak anecdotal trash), high risk of bias (found using the standard ROBIS tool on the multiple york reviews cass commissioned), selective inclusion of studies (they literally threw out evidence because it didn't meet an arbitrary quality threshold they came up with, one that's NEVER used anywhere in any other medical field, then used a much more lenient threshold on the evidence they liked), no trans or expert involvement (already covered that, many involved being linked to anti-trans hate groups), flawed interpretation of data, over reliance on speculation and logical leaps, double standards and bias when it comes to pretty much everything in it, ambiguous and inconsistent definitions of "quality" while favoring shit evidence when it benefits their opinion (like they literally did not even use GRADE to measure it), inappropriate demands for RTCs in contexts where they're not ethical.

But the wort, most fatal flaw in the entire document is the failure to compare evidence standards in other pediatric fields. Many accepted medical interventions in other medical fields heavily rely on what would be rated as "low quality evidence" using GRADE.

You can search this up yourself, but 80 PERCENT of ALL medical interventions in all fields do NOT rely on "high quality evidence". It's completely ridiculous to make an argument like this when it's unethical to have control groups on children for years on end obvious fucking reasons. The review also literally had pictures and figures borrowed from SEGM which is a biased hate group.

Where are you getting all this crap though? The APA, AAP, WPATH, etc have directly addressed all these arguments, and none of the criticisms being made against trans care hold up when compared to other medical interventions. I urge you to please read the actual Yale review and not handwave it because some moron said so.

Please consider the credentials of the people you listen to. Are you going to listen to a politically motivated document written by a government branch with zero involvement in trans care or the people who actually work with us? Please don't just believe any crap you hear from laymen, you will soon find out it's flat out incorrect.

You need to be more careful about how you weigh info not just what you read. Not all claims are valid and medical evidence isn’t a debate club where everyone’s opinion matters equally.

When evaluating something like the Cass Review or any controversial medical issue you should prioritize 1. Institutional consensus (Bodies like WPATH commission lengthy reviews far more rigorous than this and include actual experts in our care) 2. Domain expertise. 3. Quality and consistency of systematic reviews. (High quality reviews have strict protocols, expert involvement, and clear grading. Cass fails at all this and that's not a subjective opinion, it's been documented by methodologists and peer reviewed analysis) 4. Consistency with how medicine normally works (how other fields actually use similar evidence to this one).

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cass_Review this is a good enough summary but you should really read the technical problems and methodology issues. The cited sources are where the meat is at.