Dr Cass’ report makes an “interesting “ distinction, between the therapeutic approach to children and adults, when saying that “ medical thinking” need not be applied unless it involves a young person who might be considered to receive medical ( hormonal) intervention, which may have detrimental , and irreversible, future effects. This looks to me to be saying then , if the patient is an adult, seeking such intervention, the clinician is at liberty to suspend the application of “ medical thinking”, and support the social science thinking , I.e., the “ gender identity/ fluidity ideology. If in so doing, such a course should be openly acknowledged as having that basis , if biological truth is to be defended.It seems to me that such capture by our profession, by the social science protagonists have got us into this dilemma, specifically, with regard to children .
Dr Cass’ report makes an “interesting “ distinction, between the therapeutic approach to children and adults, when saying that “ medical thinking” need not be applied unless it involves a young person who might be considered to receive medical ( hormonal) intervention, which may have detrimental , and irreversible, future effects. This looks to me to be saying then , if the patient is an adult, seeking such intervention, the clinician is at liberty to suspend the application of “ medical thinking”, and support the social science thinking , I.e., the “ gender identity/ fluidity ideology. If in so doing, such a course should be openly acknowledged as having that basis , if biological truth is to be defended.It seems to me that such capture by our profession, by the social science protagonists have got us into this dilemma, specifically, with regard to children .