Thoughts on the Cass Review
The contagion of "gender identity" will continue, now also as "gender incongruence", but with a diminished risk of harmful medical interventions
The Cass Review does nothing to challenge “gender identity” ideology. I think this was to be expected, given that “gender identity” ideology is baked into the DSM-5. There is now also the new term “gender incongruence” from the ICD-11.
If children continue to be taught that everyone has a “gender identity” or “gender” that can be “incongruent” or “mismatch” with one’s sex, then the social contagion will continue. I wrote the article “cross-sex identity disorder”, with this concern in mind:
Much has been written criticising the concept of “gender identity,” however, the concept is already changing into “gender incongruence.” Arguably, unless one takes control of the language used to describe this issue, the idea that cross-sex identification is explained by literally having a trapped “essence”/”gender identity”/”gender” of the opposite sex (also known as the “Feminine Essence Narrative“), will continue to evade criticism.
All one thing
I cannot see the Cass Review makes any recognition that matters of cross-sex identification happen for different reasons. Without this context, many parts of its analysis cannot be properly understood.
The Cass Review, for example, talks about the “biological cause for gender incongruence”, and cites “prenatal and/or pubertal hormone exposure”, however this is only relevant for homosexual cross-sex identification. For autogynephilic cross-sex identification, no such connection has been made with prenatal hormone levels. This is certainly not the case for the majority of referrals, who are girls.
Autogynephilia is not mentioned in the review at all. It remains the elephant in the room.
Genderbread
The Cass Review follows the “Genderbread” graphic, and suggests that “gender identity” and “sexuality” can vary independently of each other.
Societal expectations and stereotypes have driven the idea that gender role behaviours, gender identity and sexuality should all align with birth-registered sex. This is not always the case. Gender role behaviours, gender identity and sexuality can vary independently of each other.
This appears non sequitur, given the rest of the Review sees the link between sexuality and cross-sex identification.
The “Genderbread” has always seemed to me to be a piece of propaganda to cover up why so many “trans women” are “lesbians” (i.e. because of autogynephilia). Cross-sex identification and sexual orientation are connected. In males, cross-sex identification is nearly always accompanied by atypical sexual orientation: either homosexuality, or autogynephilia, they don’t vary independently; “trans women” don’t just randomly happen to be majority “lesbians”.
Non-binary
The Cass Review talks about an “increasing number of non-binary young people” which the report defines as “those who do not have a traditional gender binary of male or female”:
This Review is not about defining what it means to be trans, nor is it about undermining the validity of trans identities, challenging the right of people to express themselves, or rolling back on people’s rights to healthcare. It is about what the healthcare approach should be, and how best to help the growing number of children and young people who are looking for support from the NHS in relation to their gender identity.
It is difficult to see how the Cass Review expects the medical profession to offer safe healthcare without knowing who it is supposed to be treating. Does the Cass Review really believe that “male and female” are just matters of “tradition”? What exactly does the Cass Review think is the alternative to being “male” or “female”? There has to be some limit to what is inclusive and what is medical science.
“Non-binary” is either male paraphilia, or a political identity. In the first case, an identity to mask a paraphilia where a male is compelled to alter his genitalia to resemble neither male or female, e.g. the “eunuch gender”. In the second case, a political identity which has primarily been adopted amongst those amongst the political left, to escape being part of the “cis-hetero-white-patriarchy” without too much effort:
The social contagion will continue
I think it would have been too much to expect the Cass Review to trace the very concept of the words “gender identity” from the ground up, and examine how ideology shaped the DSM-51. This would have involved perhaps completely rejecting the existing framework of the DSM-5 and the ICD-11. To expect them to really look into the controversies of research into matters of cross-sex identification. To expect them to look at what charities and schools have been teaching children regarding “gender identity”.
I imagine that if the Cass Review had done this, then they would have found the whole “Gender Identity Development Service” to be built on sand, and that people like Dr. Polly Carmichael, had, in fact, no clue as to what they were doing to children.
Blanchard: Oh, for sure. I mean, the people who approve, who are in favour of transition in children, who are in favour of earlier medical interventions, whether it’s puberty preventing medications, whether it’s testosterone for young girls, whether it’s surgical procedures carried out on kids as young as 16, I think they all believe that they know — they know what’s going to happen to this person in 10 years or 20 years. These people believe they know: that they can see into somebody’s soul, and they know how things are going to be. I’m not that good.2
The recommendations from the Cass Review in comparison seem to be business as usual, but hopefully without the harmful medical interventions, although those don’t seem fully off the table either.
The Cass Review continues to enshrine the concept of "gender identity" and "non binary" identities. Children will continue to be taught that everyone has a “gender identity” or “gender” or it is possible to be “non-binary”. Charities will continue to make their money by “caring” for children who have been confused by the “gender” “gender identity” “non-binary” identities that they are selling.3 If you challenge it, the NHS and Charity Commission can point to the Cass Review and say these are legitimate concepts.
The Cass Review proposes that all the confusion in children be cleared up in "local specialist services" and "operational delivery networks" however this will require extra funds, or divert funds from other parts of the NHS. The UK taxpayer will have to continue to foot the bill. There's no guarantee it will all work: the NHS currently can't even provide basic mental health services. If one's child starts questioning their "gender identity" or believes that they are "non-binary" then it is easy to imagine they will continue to be put on a waiting list. Meanwhile the trans-activist drum of suicide will continue, their persecution complex will not stop: "Cass is denying us life-saving healthcare".
The Cass Review is not only amenable to the status quo, but it looks like it will create more jobs for all involved.
The whole thing could take another decade to unpick. However I still think it all could collapse very suddenly at any time, and everything about “gender identity” will be swept away, the Cass Review along with it.
“The Life & Research of Dr. Ray Blanchard”, interview with Benjamin A. Boyce.