FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The Cass Review: Support, scepticism, and what “endorsement” really means
The Cass Review: Support, scepticism, and what “endorsement” really means
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"I started this thread because the topic came up elsewhere, and I didn’t want to derail that discussion. This really comes down to semantics about what counts as an endorsement and what counts as criticism. Yes, many organisations endorsed the goal of the Cass Review — and who wouldn’t? On paper, it was meant to improve healthcare for trans youth. But that’s entirely separate from endorsing the findings, the methodology used to reach them, or actually implementing anything from the report. Some of those endorsements were little more than the professional equivalent of smiling and nodding politely while quietly ignoring what was said. Here’s how that looks when you separate the goal from the findings: Summary When advocacy or political groups are excluded, nearly all professional and academic institutions welcomed the goal of reviewing youth gender services but did not endorse the findings of the Cass Review. Only NHS England (as the commissioning body implementing it), the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK (ACP-UK), and the European Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) align closely with Cass’s conclusions. Every other major medical, psychiatric, endocrine, or academic authority either withheld endorsement or explicitly criticised the report’s evidence base and policy implications. Even within the NHS, many clinicians disagree with treating Cass’s conclusions as settled science. --- Detailed Breakdown NHS England Endorsed the goal: Yes. Commissioned the Cass Review in 2020 to investigate shortcomings in the Tavistock gender identity service. Endorsed the findings: Officially yes, but effectively compelled. As the commissioning body, NHS England was procedurally bound to accept and act on the report once completed. Its “endorsement” represents policy compliance rather than an independent scientific evaluation. Implementation: Yes. NHS England has closed the Tavistock GIDS, opened new regional hubs, and restricted puberty blockers to research settings. Notes: Implementation reflects administrative follow-through, not universal clinical agreement. Many NHS clinicians and specialist teams have publicly or privately disagreed with Cass’s conclusions, particularly around puberty blockers. (source: NHS England “Implementing Advice from the Cass Review”, Apr 2024) --- Royal College of Psychiatrists Endorsed the goal: Yes. Welcomed the review as comprehensive and valuable. Endorsed the findings: Partially. Supported stronger evidence and holistic assessment but avoided endorsing treatment restrictions. Implementation: None. Notes: Statement was polite and procedural. Internal views remain mixed. (source: RCPsych detailed response, Apr 2024) --- Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) Endorsed the goal: Yes. Supported reviewing paediatric gender services. Endorsed the findings: Partially. Agreed on improving standards but criticised how government used Cass to justify limiting pupils’ rights. Implementation: None. Notes: Backed the intent but distanced itself from political misuse. (source: RCPCH statement following Cass Review, Apr 2024; BBC coverage July 2024) --- British Psychological Society (BPS) Endorsed the goal: Yes. Described Cass’s work as thorough and sensitive. Endorsed the findings: Cautiously. Supported more research and training but not Cass’s restrictive policy outcomes. Implementation: None. Notes: Focused on depolarising debate and expanding access to care. (source: BPS press release, Apr 2024) --- Association of Clinical Psychologists UK (ACP-UK) Endorsed the goal: Yes. Commended Cass’s professionalism and scale. Endorsed the findings: Broadly yes. Supported all recommendations, including stronger evidence requirements and cautious prescribing. Implementation: None directly. Notes: Among UK professional bodies, ACP-UK most clearly aligns with Cass’s conclusions. (source: ACP-UK statement, Apr 2024) --- British Medical Association (BMA) Endorsed the goal: Yes, in principle. Endorsed the findings: No. Council voted not to endorse Cass, calling the recommendations unsubstantiated. Implementation: No. Notes: Strongest rejection from a UK medical body; internal dispute widely reported. (source: The Guardian, 7 Sep 2024 “BMA stance on Cass Review has damaged its reputation”) --- British Association of Gender Identity Specialists (BAGIS) Endorsed the goal: Yes. Endorsed the findings: No. Warned that Cass’s conclusions would limit access to care and misrepresent specialist expertise. Implementation: No. Notes: BAGIS members include many NHS gender clinicians who dispute Cass’s interpretation of evidence. (source: BAGIS response summary, May 2024) --- World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Endorsed the goal: Yes. Accepted that service review is legitimate. Endorsed the findings: No. Issued a joint statement condemning the Cass Review’s process and conclusions as scientifically flawed and harmful. Implementation: No. Notes: Reaffirmed gender-affirming care as international best practice. (source: WPATH/USPATH joint statement, May 2024) --- USPATH (US branch of WPATH) Endorsed the goal: Yes. Endorsed the findings: No. Co-signed WPATH’s global statement rejecting Cass. Implementation: No. Notes: Identical position to WPATH. (source: WPATH/USPATH joint statement, May 2024) --- Endocrine Society (USA) Endorsed the goal: Yes. Considered evidence review appropriate. Endorsed the findings: No. Stated Cass produced no new data and did not justify overturning existing guidelines. Implementation: No. Notes: Reaffirmed its 2017 clinical guideline supporting gender-affirming care. (source: Endocrine Society press release, 8 May 2024) --- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Endorsed the goal: Neutral to positive. Recognised reviews as normal scientific practice. Endorsed the findings: No. Reaffirmed its affirmative-care model after Cass’s publication. Implementation: No. Notes: Conducting its own evidence review; current policy remains unchanged. (source: AAP policy reaffirmation, Aug 2023; follow-up statements 2024) --- Yale School of Medicine / Integrity Project Endorsed the goal: Yes. Endorsed the findings: No. Published white paper labelling Cass methodologically flawed, biased, and non-authoritative. Implementation: No. Notes: Concluded Cass should not guide clinical policy. (source: Yale Integrity Project white paper, Jul 2024) --- European Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) Endorsed the goal: Yes. Endorsed the findings: Broadly yes. Supported Cass’s call for caution and stronger evidence before medicalisation. Implementation: No direct role. Notes: Only major European medical society aligning closely with Cass’s conclusions. (source: ESCAP statement, Jun 2024) --- ILGA-Europe, TGEU, and IGLYO Endorsed the goal: No objection to review. Endorsed the findings: No. Criticised Cass for poor methodology, exclusion of trans voices, and pathologising framing. Implementation: No. Notes: Pan-European rights organisations focused on policy impact, not clinical endorsement. (source: Joint ILGA-Europe/TGEU statement, May 2024) --- Amnesty International UK Endorsed the goal: Yes, with caution. Endorsed the findings: No. Condemned the politicisation and weaponisation of the Cass Review. Implementation: No. Notes: Framed concerns around human-rights impact rather than clinical science. (source: Amnesty UK media statement, Apr 2024) --- Australian and New Zealand gender clinicians (Medical Journal of Australia commentary) Endorsed the goal: Yes. Endorsed the findings: No. Criticised Cass as conceptually flawed and inconsistent with international best practice. Implementation: No. Notes: Both countries remain aligned with WPATH standards. (source: Medical Journal of Australia, Oct 2025) --- European academic reviews (BMC Medicine, Archives of Disease in Childhood debate) Endorsed the goal: Yes. Endorsed the findings: No. Independent analyses found high risk of bias and weak evidence in Cass’s supporting studies. Implementation: No. Notes: Academic scrutiny of the Cass Review has been largely critical. (source: BMC Med Res Methodology, May 2025; ADC correspondence, 2024–25) " The BMA made a right pigs ear in its critique of tge Cass Report, being forced to change its stance due to the pressure applied on it by its own members.. "The British Medical Association (BMA) changed its initial position on the Cass Review for a few key reasons. Here’s a breakdown of what happened, why the shift, and what factors influenced it. What the BMA’s original position was After the Cass Review (by Hilary Cass) was published, the BMA Council voted in July 2024 to “publicly critique” the report and to call for a pause in implementing its recommendations. In particular, the BMA expressed concerns about the Review’s methodology, stating that the recommendations were “unsubstantiated”. At that stage, the BMA did not accept the Cass Review’s findings and seemed to oppose broad implementation of its recommendations. Why the BMA shifted to a “neutral” stance Rising criticism from its own membership: More than 1,500 doctors (including many BMA members) signed an open letter condemning the BMA’s initial position as not reflecting the views of the wider membership. Questions about process and credibility: Critics argued the BMA’s decision-making lacked transparency, consultation of its members, and clear evidence backing its critique of the Review. Reputational risk: The BMA faced accusations of deviating from evidence-based practice, and that its stance could damage its credibility as a professional body. Internal reflection and desire to “do due process”: The BMA announced it would undertake its own evidence-led evaluation of the Cass Review, from a position of neutrality, rather than outright opposition. Factors influencing the change Member backlash: The large number of members signing letters and expressing dissatisfaction appears to have pressured the Council. Professional bodies’ stance: Other major UK medical bodies (like the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and various Royal Colleges) accepted or supported the Cass Review, making the BMA’s opposing stance more isolated. Lack of detailed critique at the start: The BMA criticised the Cass Review but was challenged for not specifying exactly what was wrong with the methodology or evidence. For example, Cass herself said the BMA “haven’t actually said what it is they object to”. Risk-management: With the topic being sensitive (healthcare for children/young people, gender identity services), the BMA likely judged that a more measured, “neutral” position would reduce damage and open the path for its own review rather than outright rejection. What the neutral stance means The BMA will not immediately endorse or oppose the Cass Review’s recommendations but will evaluate them via a Task & Finish Group. The evaluation is intended to review evidence, listen to people with lived-experience, clinicians, and make reflections on the review’s implementation. They have set aside a fixed “pre-judged” stance and will proceed from a starting point of neutrality. --- ⚠️ Important caveats The BMA has not publicly reversed all their concerns—they still reserve critique of certain aspects (methodology etc). Time-frame and transparency: Some criticism remains that the BMA has delayed producing outcomes of its Task & Finish Groups and hasn’t been fully clear on timelines. The shift does not mean full endorsement of Cass; it means “we’re reviewing and we’ll remain neutral until our evaluation concludes". Joke, Mrs x | |||
"The BMA made a right pigs ear in its critique of tge Cass Report, being forced to change its stance due to the pressure applied on it by its own members.. "The British Medical Association (BMA) changed its initial position on the Cass Review for a few key reasons. Here’s a breakdown of what happened, why the shift, and what factors influenced it. What the BMA’s original position was After the Cass Review (by Hilary Cass) was published, the BMA Council voted in July 2024 to “publicly critique” the report and to call for a pause in implementing its recommendations. In particular, the BMA expressed concerns about the Review’s methodology, stating that the recommendations were “unsubstantiated”. At that stage, the BMA did not accept the Cass Review’s findings and seemed to oppose broad implementation of its recommendations. Why the BMA shifted to a “neutral” stance Rising criticism from its own membership: More than 1,500 doctors (including many BMA members) signed an open letter condemning the BMA’s initial position as not reflecting the views of the wider membership. Questions about process and credibility: Critics argued the BMA’s decision-making lacked transparency, consultation of its members, and clear evidence backing its critique of the Review. Reputational risk: The BMA faced accusations of deviating from evidence-based practice, and that its stance could damage its credibility as a professional body. Internal reflection and desire to “do due process”: The BMA announced it would undertake its own evidence-led evaluation of the Cass Review, from a position of neutrality, rather than outright opposition. Factors influencing the change Member backlash: The large number of members signing letters and expressing dissatisfaction appears to have pressured the Council. Professional bodies’ stance: Other major UK medical bodies (like the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and various Royal Colleges) accepted or supported the Cass Review, making the BMA’s opposing stance more isolated. Lack of detailed critique at the start: The BMA criticised the Cass Review but was challenged for not specifying exactly what was wrong with the methodology or evidence. For example, Cass herself said the BMA “haven’t actually said what it is they object to”. Risk-management: With the topic being sensitive (healthcare for children/young people, gender identity services), the BMA likely judged that a more measured, “neutral” position would reduce damage and open the path for its own review rather than outright rejection. What the neutral stance means The BMA will not immediately endorse or oppose the Cass Review’s recommendations but will evaluate them via a Task & Finish Group. The evaluation is intended to review evidence, listen to people with lived-experience, clinicians, and make reflections on the review’s implementation. They have set aside a fixed “pre-judged” stance and will proceed from a starting point of neutrality. --- ⚠️ Important caveats The BMA has not publicly reversed all their concerns—they still reserve critique of certain aspects (methodology etc). Time-frame and transparency: Some criticism remains that the BMA has delayed producing outcomes of its Task & Finish Groups and hasn’t been fully clear on timelines. The shift does not mean full endorsement of Cass; it means “we’re reviewing and we’ll remain neutral until our evaluation concludes". Joke, Mrs x" You’ve described the BMA’s shift accurately up to a point, but nothing in that timeline amounts to endorsement. The council vote from July 2024 still stands until the Task & Finish review concludes, and no new vote or statement has reversed it. What changed was tone, not policy — they paused open opposition to carry out an internal review. That’s procedural neutrality, not support. There’s also no published data on how many members demanded the change or what proportion backed it. Until the BMA releases that and the task group’s findings, their official stance remains non-endorsement. Even your own summary says “The shift does not mean full endorsement.” That’s the key point. | |||
"Royal College of Psychiatrists Endorsed the goal: Yes. Welcomed the review as comprehensive and valuable. Endorsed the findings: Partially. Supported stronger evidence and holistic assessment but avoided endorsing treatment restrictions. Implementation: None. Notes: Statement was polite and procedural. Internal views remain mixed. (source: RCPsych detailed response, Apr 2024)" To pick the first one in your very long list, here's the detailed response from the RCPsych: https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2024/04/22/detailed-response-to-the-cass-review%27s-final-report Reading that I see a lot of "we endorse" and "strongly agree" and "needs to be acted upon". Where in that statement do you see criticism of the Cass Report? Do you genuinely think the statement reads as "polite and procedural" but not actively agreeing? | |||
"The BMA made a right pigs ear in its critique of tge Cass Report, being forced to change its stance due to the pressure applied on it by its own members.. "The British Medical Association (BMA) changed its initial position on the Cass Review for a few key reasons. Here’s a breakdown of what happened, why the shift, and what factors influenced it. What the BMA’s original position was After the Cass Review (by Hilary Cass) was published, the BMA Council voted in July 2024 to “publicly critique” the report and to call for a pause in implementing its recommendations. In particular, the BMA expressed concerns about the Review’s methodology, stating that the recommendations were “unsubstantiated”. At that stage, the BMA did not accept the Cass Review’s findings and seemed to oppose broad implementation of its recommendations. Why the BMA shifted to a “neutral” stance Rising criticism from its own membership: More than 1,500 doctors (including many BMA members) signed an open letter condemning the BMA’s initial position as not reflecting the views of the wider membership. Questions about process and credibility: Critics argued the BMA’s decision-making lacked transparency, consultation of its members, and clear evidence backing its critique of the Review. Reputational risk: The BMA faced accusations of deviating from evidence-based practice, and that its stance could damage its credibility as a professional body. Internal reflection and desire to “do due process”: The BMA announced it would undertake its own evidence-led evaluation of the Cass Review, from a position of neutrality, rather than outright opposition. Factors influencing the change Member backlash: The large number of members signing letters and expressing dissatisfaction appears to have pressured the Council. Professional bodies’ stance: Other major UK medical bodies (like the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and various Royal Colleges) accepted or supported the Cass Review, making the BMA’s opposing stance more isolated. Lack of detailed critique at the start: The BMA criticised the Cass Review but was challenged for not specifying exactly what was wrong with the methodology or evidence. For example, Cass herself said the BMA “haven’t actually said what it is they object to”. Risk-management: With the topic being sensitive (healthcare for children/young people, gender identity services), the BMA likely judged that a more measured, “neutral” position would reduce damage and open the path for its own review rather than outright rejection. What the neutral stance means The BMA will not immediately endorse or oppose the Cass Review’s recommendations but will evaluate them via a Task & Finish Group. The evaluation is intended to review evidence, listen to people with lived-experience, clinicians, and make reflections on the review’s implementation. They have set aside a fixed “pre-judged” stance and will proceed from a starting point of neutrality. --- ⚠️ Important caveats The BMA has not publicly reversed all their concerns—they still reserve critique of certain aspects (methodology etc). Time-frame and transparency: Some criticism remains that the BMA has delayed producing outcomes of its Task & Finish Groups and hasn’t been fully clear on timelines. The shift does not mean full endorsement of Cass; it means “we’re reviewing and we’ll remain neutral until our evaluation concludes". Joke, Mrs x You’ve described the BMA’s shift accurately up to a point, but nothing in that timeline amounts to endorsement. The council vote from July 2024 still stands until the Task & Finish review concludes, and no new vote or statement has reversed it. What changed was tone, not policy — they paused open opposition to carry out an internal review. That’s procedural neutrality, not support. There’s also no published data on how many members demanded the change or what proportion backed it. Until the BMA releases that and the task group’s findings, their official stance remains non-endorsement. Even your own summary says “The shift does not mean full endorsement.” That’s the key point." What? They've actually have been slated by their own membership. The BMA is criticised for rejecting the Cass Review at its council meeting on 17 July, calling its findings “unsubstantiated” and voting to “publicly critique” the recommendations. Over 1,500 doctors (including many senior figures) signed a letter of protest, saying the union’s position does not reflect the views of the wider membership. A climate of fear and intimidation is alleged within the BMA: some council members say they felt unable to speak openly on the issue. The critique is that by rejecting the review, the BMA has put the reputation of the medical profession at risk, especially because other major medical bodies supported the review’s conclusions. That doesn't amount to a change of tone, it amounts to rebellion by its membership. Mrs x | |||
"Royal College of Psychiatrists Endorsed the goal: Yes. Welcomed the review as comprehensive and valuable. Endorsed the findings: Partially. Supported stronger evidence and holistic assessment but avoided endorsing treatment restrictions. Implementation: None. Notes: Statement was polite and procedural. Internal views remain mixed. (source: RCPsych detailed response, Apr 2024) To pick the first one in your very long list, here's the detailed response from the RCPsych: https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2024/04/22/detailed-response-to-the-cass-review%27s-final-report Reading that I see a lot of "we endorse" and "strongly agree" and "needs to be acted upon". Where in that statement do you see criticism of the Cass Report? Do you genuinely think the statement reads as "polite and procedural" but not actively agreeing?" But when you have an 'agenda' you tend to see only what you want. Mrs x | |||
"To pick the first one in your very long list, here's the detailed response from the RCPsych: https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2024/04/22/detailed-response-to-the-cass-review%27s-final-report Reading that I see a lot of "we endorse" and "strongly agree" and "needs to be acted upon". Where in that statement do you see criticism of the Cass Report? Do you genuinely think the statement reads as "polite and procedural" but not actively agreeing?" You’re right that the RCPsych statement uses phrases like “we endorse” and “we strongly agree,” but look at what those phrases actually attach to. They endorse the recommendations to improve research, data collection, and service quality — not Cass’s interpretation of evidence or her conclusions about medical treatment. The College literally says: “We strongly agree with the Cass Review’s recommendation that there is a need for robust evidence on the risks and benefits of medical interventions.” That isn’t support for the findings — it’s agreement that more evidence is needed before drawing conclusions. Nowhere in that press release does the College adopt Cass’s position that the existing evidence is too weak to justify treatment or that puberty blockers should be restricted. They’re endorsing the goal of gathering better data, not the content of Cass’s analysis. That’s the distinction. Saying “we endorse the need for more evidence and holistic services” isn’t the same as endorsing the report itself. It’s agreeing that more information would be useful, not that Cass’s findings were correct. | |||
"To pick the first one in your very long list, here's the detailed response from the RCPsych: https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2024/04/22/detailed-response-to-the-cass-review%27s-final-report Reading that I see a lot of "we endorse" and "strongly agree" and "needs to be acted upon". Where in that statement do you see criticism of the Cass Report? Do you genuinely think the statement reads as "polite and procedural" but not actively agreeing? You’re right that the RCPsych statement uses phrases like “we endorse” and “we strongly agree,” but look at what those phrases actually attach to. They endorse the recommendations to improve research, data collection, and service quality — not Cass’s interpretation of evidence or her conclusions about medical treatment. The College literally says: “We strongly agree with the Cass Review’s recommendation that there is a need for robust evidence on the risks and benefits of medical interventions.” That isn’t support for the findings — it’s agreement that more evidence is needed before drawing conclusions. Nowhere in that press release does the College adopt Cass’s position that the existing evidence is too weak to justify treatment or that puberty blockers should be restricted. They’re endorsing the goal of gathering better data, not the content of Cass’s analysis. That’s the distinction. Saying “we endorse the need for more evidence and holistic services” isn’t the same as endorsing the report itself. It’s agreeing that more information would be useful, not that Cass’s findings were correct. " It's also not condemning it either. You are just placing your interpretation onto the statements. Your argument would be stronger if you could point to explicit condemnation rather than giving your reasons as to whats actually being said. Mrs x | |||
"What? They've actually have been slated by their own membership. The BMA is criticised for rejecting the Cass Review at its council meeting on 17 July, calling its findings “unsubstantiated” and voting to “publicly critique” the recommendations. Over 1,500 doctors (including many senior figures) signed a letter of protest, saying the union’s position does not reflect the views of the wider membership. A climate of fear and intimidation is alleged within the BMA: some council members say they felt unable to speak openly on the issue. The critique is that by rejecting the review, the BMA has put the reputation of the medical profession at risk, especially because other major medical bodies supported the review’s conclusions. That doesn't amount to a change of tone, it amounts to rebellion by its membership. Mrs x" You’re overstating what those 1,500 signatures represent. The BMA has around 190,000 members, so even if every signatory were a member, that’s under one percent. It’s a protest, not a majority view. There’s no public data showing how many members support or oppose the Cass Review overall. The BMA hasn’t released a membership poll or full vote breakdown. What we have are a few open letters and a council motion from July 2024 to “publicly critique” the report and pause implementation. The later shift to a “neutral” stance wasn’t a reversal of that decision. It was the creation of a Task & Finish group to examine the evidence properly. No new vote or endorsement followed, and the group hasn’t yet reported its findings. So yes, this shows there’s some internal disagreement, but it doesn’t come anywhere near the level of “open rebellion.” Until the BMA publishes membership data or an updated motion, the factual position remains the same: non-endorsement pending review. (source: BMA press release 22 Jul 2024; New Statesman 7 Sep 2024; Guardian 7 Sep 2024; BMA Task & Finish Group notice, Aug 2024) | |||
"But when you have an 'agenda' you tend to see only what you want. Mrs x" That’s the difference between reading a statement critically and reading it to confirm a belief. Endorsing the need for more evidence or better data collection isn’t the same as endorsing the findings that led to those recommendations. The Royal College of Psychiatrists agreed that research and service improvement are necessary — almost everyone does. What they didn’t do was adopt Cass’s interpretation of the evidence or her recommendations on restricting treatment. Their response contains no language supporting that position. If you read the statement without assuming agreement, it’s clear they endorsed the process of improving evidence, not the report’s conclusions. That’s the distinction between endorsement of the goal and endorsement of the findings — and it’s one the Cass debate keeps blurring. | |||
"To pick the first one in your very long list, here's the detailed response from the RCPsych: https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2024/04/22/detailed-response-to-the-cass-review%27s-final-report Reading that I see a lot of "we endorse" and "strongly agree" and "needs to be acted upon". Where in that statement do you see criticism of the Cass Report? Do you genuinely think the statement reads as "polite and procedural" but not actively agreeing? You’re right that the RCPsych statement uses phrases like “we endorse” and “we strongly agree,” but look at what those phrases actually attach to. They endorse the recommendations to improve research, data collection, and service quality — not Cass’s interpretation of evidence or her conclusions about medical treatment. The College literally says: “We strongly agree with the Cass Review’s recommendation that there is a need for robust evidence on the risks and benefits of medical interventions.” That isn’t support for the findings — it’s agreement that more evidence is needed before drawing conclusions. Nowhere in that press release does the College adopt Cass’s position that the existing evidence is too weak to justify treatment or that puberty blockers should be restricted. They’re endorsing the goal of gathering better data, not the content of Cass’s analysis. That’s the distinction. Saying “we endorse the need for more evidence and holistic services” isn’t the same as endorsing the report itself. It’s agreeing that more information would be useful, not that Cass’s findings were correct. It's also not condemning it either. You are just placing your interpretation onto the statements. Your argument would be stronger if you could point to explicit condemnation rather than giving your reasons as to whats actually being said. Mrs x" Just re-read this and your last sentence is so weird. You are saying that although they endorse the report they dont agree with the findings. This is rubbish. Any medical body who didnt think something was 'correct', the findings in this case, then they would be legally bound, and honour bound to disagree wholeheartedly with this. And they havent have they. Medicine adhers to doing no harm, so if they believed that something was harmful they couldn't agree with it. It's the whole principle behind the reasoning for the Cass report. Mrs x | |||
"It's also not condemning it either. You are just placing your interpretation onto the statements. Your argument would be stronger if you could point to explicit condemnation rather than giving your reasons as to whats actually being said. Mrs x" You’re right that it isn’t a formal condemnation. It’s neutrality — and neutrality is not endorsement. If a professional body says “we agree more research is needed” but does not adopt the report’s findings or implement its recommendations, that isn’t support, it’s distance. When an organisation truly endorses a report, it acts on its conclusions. The Royal College hasn’t. That’s the whole distinction: agreeing that the topic deserves better evidence isn’t the same as agreeing that Cass’s analysis of the evidence was sound. The first is procedural; the second would be scientific endorsement. If you think they endorsed the findings, point to the part where they adopt Cass’s conclusions on medical treatment or policy. It isn’t there. | |||
"Just re-read this and your last sentence is so weird. You are saying that although they endorse the report they dont agree with the findings. This is rubbish. Any medical body who didnt think something was 'correct', the findings in this case, then they would be legally bound, and honour bound to disagree wholeheartedly with this. And they havent have they. Medicine adhers to doing no harm, so if they believed that something was harmful they couldn't agree with it. It's the whole principle behind the reasoning for the Cass report. Mrs x" It isn’t rubbish, it’s how institutions talk when a subject has become politicised. When an issue sits at the centre of a culture war, professional bodies word their statements carefully to avoid being dragged into either camp. That’s exactly what you’re seeing here. Agreeing with the idea of improving data and evidence is safe and apolitical. Endorsing Cass’s findings on treatment, methodology, or conclusions about evidence quality would be a formal scientific endorsement — and none of the UK Royal Colleges have done that. If they truly believed the report’s conclusions were correct, they would have implemented them or cited Cass as an evidence base for policy. They haven’t. They’ve supported further study, not adoption. That difference isn’t semantics — it’s the gap between welcoming research and endorsing a contested conclusion. | |||
"Just re-read this and your last sentence is so weird. You are saying that although they endorse the report they dont agree with the findings. This is rubbish. Any medical body who didnt think something was 'correct', the findings in this case, then they would be legally bound, and honour bound to disagree wholeheartedly with this. And they havent have they. Medicine adhers to doing no harm, so if they believed that something was harmful they couldn't agree with it. It's the whole principle behind the reasoning for the Cass report. Mrs x It isn’t rubbish, it’s how institutions talk when a subject has become politicised. When an issue sits at the centre of a culture war, professional bodies word their statements carefully to avoid being dragged into either camp. That’s exactly what you’re seeing here. Agreeing with the idea of improving data and evidence is safe and apolitical. Endorsing Cass’s findings on treatment, methodology, or conclusions about evidence quality would be a formal scientific endorsement — and none of the UK Royal Colleges have done that. If they truly believed the report’s conclusions were correct, they would have implemented them or cited Cass as an evidence base for policy. They haven’t. They’ve supported further study, not adoption.⁶ That difference isn’t semantics — it’s the gap between welcoming research and endorsing a contested conclusion." Even in your original post you state that the BMA endorsed the Cass report, in principle. You then mention that the BMA gave the "Strongest rejection from a UK medical body", which they did initially. They then change this position due to outrage amongst its membership, some of whom described the BMA's stance as irrational”, creating a “fracture” between its leadership and the grassroots leaving the medical profession “in an uproar”. They then went on to say that those driving the union’s “anti-Cass” policy “are sincere in their beliefs [but] have no hard evidence for their opposition”, and that the union is in danger of undergoing what one critic describes as “descent into madness”. So why are you letting others no of this in your post. It's an embarrassing u-turn for the BMA. So why are you 'promoting' the BMA's original stance and not what they are saying now after pressure from the medical experts in their ranks. You seem to be pushing the narrative you support, rather than giving everyone the facts from both sides so they can make up their mind on whats actually happening g, not what the BMA tried to do. Why is this? Is it because you have'skin'in the game and need to argue from that position. So irrational... fractured leadership... leaving medical profession in an uproar... no hard evidence for their opposition... descent into madness. Not great observations about the BMA's decision and yet you still choose their original position. I can see why you'd do that, it doesn't strengthen your argument. The BMA is the only medical organisation in Britain to not accept and to find fault with Cass’s findings, which were accepted by the last government and its Labour successor. It has said that it wants to carry out its own evaluation. This has been printed in the UK's press. I know ow you like AI, so here's the result of a quick search... "The British Medical Association (BMA) — it’s the ONLY MAJOR UK medical body that formally voted to reject / publicly critique the Cass Review. Most other major UK medical bodies welcomed or responded constructively to the Cass Review (for example the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the British Psychological Society issued positive or measured responses supporting implementation and further research). So over to you to try and spin the fact that the only major UK professional body initially did not endorse the Cass report, yet had to change this decision due to pressure from its members. 1... 2... 3.... SPIN, Mrs x | |||
"Even in your original post you state that the BMA endorsed the Cass report, in principle. You then mention that the BMA gave the "Strongest rejection from a UK medical body", which they did initially. They then change this position due to outrage amongst its membership, some of whom described the BMA's stance as irrational”, creating a “fracture” between its leadership and the grassroots leaving the medical profession “in an uproar”. They then went on to say that those driving the union’s “anti-Cass” policy “are sincere in their beliefs [but] have no hard evidence for their opposition”, and that the union is in danger of undergoing what one critic describes as “descent into madness”. So why are you letting others no of this in your post. It's an embarrassing u-turn for the BMA. So why are you 'promoting' the BMA's original stance and not what they are saying now after pressure from the medical experts in their ranks. You seem to be pushing the narrative you support, rather than giving everyone the facts from both sides so they can make up their mind on whats actually happening g, not what the BMA tried to do. Why is this? Is it because you have'skin'in the game and need to argue from that position. So irrational... fractured leadership... leaving medical profession in an uproar... no hard evidence for their opposition... descent into madness. Not great observations about the BMA's decision and yet you still choose their original position. I can see why you'd do that, it doesn't strengthen your argument. The BMA is the only medical organisation in Britain to not accept and to find fault with Cass’s findings, which were accepted by the last government and its Labour successor. It has said that it wants to carry out its own evaluation. This has been printed in the UK's press. I know ow you like AI, so here's the result of a quick search... "The British Medical Association (BMA) — it’s the ONLY MAJOR UK medical body that formally voted to reject / publicly critique the Cass Review. Most other major UK medical bodies welcomed or responded constructively to the Cass Review (for example the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the British Psychological Society issued positive or measured responses supporting implementation and further research). So over to you to try and spin the fact that the only major UK professional body initially did not endorse the Cass report, yet had to change this decision due to pressure from its members. 1... 2... 3.... SPIN, Mrs x" There’s no spin here, just the record as it stands. The BMA’s July 2024 council motion to publicly critique the Cass Review is still the only formal vote on record. Nothing since has replaced or reversed it. The so-called “change of stance” you’re describing wasn’t a new motion or endorsement — it was a decision to form a Task & Finish group to review the evidence. That’s neutrality, not acceptance. The “uproar” stories in the press were about internal disagreement, not a policy reversal. Even the articles you’re quoting acknowledge that the BMA “has not publicly reversed all their concerns.” Until the task group reports, the official position remains non-endorsement pending review. You can call that embarrassing if you like, but it’s still the truth. The BMA is reviewing Cass; it has not endorsed her findings. That isn’t “skin in the game,” it’s evidence. And yes, every other medical body welcomed the review — the idea of better data and research — but none have adopted Cass’s conclusions or implemented them as policy. Welcoming a review isn’t the same as endorsing its science. | |||
"Even in your original post you state that the BMA endorsed the Cass report, in principle. You then mention that the BMA gave the "Strongest rejection from a UK medical body", which they did initially. They then change this position due to outrage amongst its membership, some of whom described the BMA's stance as irrational”, creating a “fracture” between its leadership and the grassroots leaving the medical profession “in an uproar”. They then went on to say that those driving the union’s “anti-Cass” policy “are sincere in their beliefs [but] have no hard evidence for their opposition”, and that the union is in danger of undergoing what one critic describes as “descent into madness”. So why are you letting others no of this in your post. It's an embarrassing u-turn for the BMA. So why are you 'promoting' the BMA's original stance and not what they are saying now after pressure from the medical experts in their ranks. You seem to be pushing the narrative you support, rather than giving everyone the facts from both sides so they can make up their mind on whats actually happening g, not what the BMA tried to do. Why is this? Is it because you have'skin'in the game and need to argue from that position. So irrational... fractured leadership... leaving medical profession in an uproar... no hard evidence for their opposition... descent into madness. Not great observations about the BMA's decision and yet you still choose their original position. I can see why you'd do that, it doesn't strengthen your argument. The BMA is the only medical organisation in Britain to not accept and to find fault with Cass’s findings, which were accepted by the last government and its Labour successor. It has said that it wants to carry out its own evaluation. This has been printed in the UK's press. I know ow you like AI, so here's the result of a quick search... "The British Medical Association (BMA) — it’s the ONLY MAJOR UK medical body that formally voted to reject / publicly critique the Cass Review. Most other major UK medical bodies welcomed or responded constructively to the Cass Review (for example the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the British Psychological Society issued positive or measured responses supporting implementation and further research). So over to you to try and spin the fact that the only major UK professional body initially did not endorse the Cass report, yet had to change this decision due to pressure from its members. 1... 2... 3.... SPIN, Mrs x There’s no spin here, just the record as it stands. The BMA’s July 2024 council motion to publicly critique the Cass Review is still the only formal vote on record. Nothing since has replaced or reversed it. The so-called “change of stance” you’re describing wasn’t a new motion or endorsement — it was a decision to form a Task & Finish group to review the evidence. That’s neutrality, not acceptance. The “uproar” stories in the press were about internal disagreement, not a policy reversal. Even the articles you’re quoting acknowledge that the BMA “has not publicly reversed all their concerns.” Until the task group reports, the official position remains non-endorsement pending review. You can call that embarrassing if you like, but it’s still the truth. The BMA is reviewing Cass; it has not endorsed her findings. That isn’t “skin in the game,” it’s evidence. And yes, every other medical body welcomed the review — the idea of better data and research — but none have adopted Cass’s conclusions or implemented them as policy. Welcoming a review isn’t the same as endorsing its science." You should sit down, you must be so dizzy spinning like that... I'm not calling it anything, you are. What you are saying is in direct opposition to the UK press, The Observer and The Guardian in this case and also from these AI apps you love to use. You are also ignoring the words and medical opinions of members of the BMA members, some of whom are actual council members. Not sure if its arrogance or ignorance? Not surprising, criticising something that goes against the narrative of tge Trans movement, from somebody who is the process of their own transition, you are not coming across as impartial but quite partisan. Sit down, let your equilibrium return to normal or all this spinning could do you a mischief, Mrs x | |||
" Here’s how that looks when you separate the goal from the findings: " OMG - a GenAI wall of slop! We seriously need forum rules against this kind of nonsense. Response, courtesy of Grok. The post misrepresents these organizations as outright rejecting the Cass Review's findings. In reality, their responses are nuanced, often endorsing the review's goals and some key recommendations while critiquing aspects like methodology, implementation, or politicization—hardly a blanket rejection. - ILGA-Europe and TGEU: No May 2024 statement directly on the Cass Review exists in public records; their critiques (e.g., Sep 2024 on school guidance) focus on policy misuse and human rights impacts, not clinical endorsement or rejection of findings. They emphasize rights-based concerns over scientific debate. - Amnesty International UK: Their April 2024 statement condemns the "weaponisation" of the review by anti-trans groups and media moral panic, not the findings themselves. They affirm trans youth deserve high-quality care, aligning with the review's goal of evidence-based services. - Australian and New Zealand gender clinicians: The October 2025 MJA commentary notes that "many of the Review's 32 recommendations align with current Australian best practice," such as individualized, multidisciplinary care—endorsing significant portions while critiquing conceptual flaws and calling it inconsistent with WPATH standards. This is partial agreement, not rejection. - European academic reviews: Scrutiny is mixed, not "largely critical." The May 2025 BMC Medical Research Methodology paper identifies methodological flaws (e.g., high bias risk in reviews) that undermine some claims but doesn't dismiss findings wholesale. Meanwhile, Archives of Disease in Childhood (2024–2025) includes supportive pieces defending the review's evidence-based approach against critics and urging implementation. These groups prioritize human rights, ethics, and better care over ideological dismissal. The post cherry-picks to paint a false narrative of uniform rejection. | |||
On a side note, you really need to be careful what 'facts' you trust from search engines or AI. Computers are fast, they can be quite clever, but they still don't comprehend like a person. | |||
"Don't you know? Posting walls and walls of text from AI apps and Google searches makes your argument more valid.
On a side note, you really need to be careful what 'facts' you trust from search engines or AI. Computers are fast, they can be quite clever, but they still don't comprehend like a person."It's okay, we have no need to read anything anymore - AI will discuss with AI now. So it doesn't really matter at all.  | |||
"Don't you know? Posting walls and walls of text from AI apps and Google searches makes your argument more valid.
On a side note, you really need to be careful what 'facts' you trust from search engines or AI. Computers are fast, they can be quite clever, but they still don't comprehend like a person.
It's okay, we have no need to read anything anymore - AI will discuss with AI now. So it doesn't really matter at all.
"I'm so sorry, I've used AI extensively here but in my defense, I've only used it in threads were its been used by the 'usual suspects'. It just saves time, and my nails, when writing up this is I already am arguing about. I've tried to utilise logic, Occums Razor and other stuff but they dont want to hear, others ideas. They dont even want to listen to the AI responses whilst expecting others to listen to their Chat GPT findings. I'll endeavour to not use it anymore as I genuinely believe people use it as an attempt at intellectual aggrandizement. Sorry guys, and girls obviously, Mrs x | |||
| |||
"When people run out of evidence, they usually start talking about personalities or process. Everything I’ve posted came from verifiable public sources — NHS, BMA, Royal College statements, and peer-reviewed research. The method of typing them out doesn’t change whether they’re true. I’m not interested in trading insults about who uses what tool; I’m interested in the data. And that data still shows what I said from the start: the Cass Review has been politically welcomed but scientifically contested, and the BMA’s position remains non-endorsement pending review. If anyone disagrees, show the official vote, statement, or implementation that proves otherwise. Everything else is just noise." You are deliberately suggesting that someone's suggesting that the BMA has endorsed it when they havent, not that I can see. All anyone, and I presume you mean me is that the BMA changed its original stance and this wasn't done because of any 'evidentiary' pressure but was purely down to internal pressure from its own members criticising the BMA for its original stance. I've gone on to say this has possible caused reputations damage to tgeBMA and is an embarrassment. This is due to the fact that the BMA was the ONLY MAJOR medical body to do this. So crack on, with your linguistic trickery but thats a fact. The BMA have recieved criticism for the stance they first took, from their own members, academics and other MAJOR medical bodies. So your ascertain that the Cass report was universally panned is either a total fabrication or a statement of hope from a Trans person, on a sensitive Trans subject. Is Kylie an inspiration for you? "I'm spinning around, move out of my way I know you're feeling me 'cause you like it like this..." Mrs x | |||
"You are deliberately suggesting that someone's suggesting that the BMA has endorsed it when they havent, not that I can see. All anyone, and I presume you mean me is that the BMA changed its original stance and this wasn't done because of any 'evidentiary' pressure but was purely down to internal pressure from its own members criticising the BMA for its original stance. I've gone on to say this has possible caused reputations damage to tgeBMA and is an embarrassment. This is due to the fact that the BMA was the ONLY MAJOR medical body to do this. So crack on, with your linguistic trickery but thats a fact. The BMA have recieved criticism for the stance they first took, from their own members, academics and other MAJOR medical bodies. So your ascertain that the Cass report was universally panned is either a total fabrication or a statement of hope from a Trans person, on a sensitive Trans subject. Is Kylie an inspiration for you? "I'm spinning around, move out of my way I know you're feeling me 'cause you like it like this..." Mrs x" | |||
| |||
| |||
"Oops just have gotten distracted while posting this is what was meant to go in there. There’s no spin here, just the record as it stands. The BMA’s July 2024 council motion to publicly critique the Cass Review is still the only formal vote on record. Nothing since has replaced or reversed it. The so-called “change of stance” you’re describing wasn’t a new motion or endorsement — it was a decision to form a Task & Finish group to review the evidence. That’s neutrality, not acceptance. The “uproar” stories in the press were about internal disagreement, not a policy reversal. Even the articles you’re quoting acknowledge that the BMA “has not publicly reversed all their concerns.” Until the task group reports, the official position remains non-endorsement pending review. You can call that embarrassing if you like, but it’s still the truth. The BMA is reviewing Cass; it has not endorsed her findings. That isn’t “skin in the game,” it’s evidence. And yes, every other medical body welcomed the review — the idea of better data and research — but none have adopted Cass’s conclusions or implemented them as policy. Welcoming a review isn’t the same as endorsing its science." Did the BMA change their original stance? Thats all I'm saying. So did they? Mrs x | |||
"Oops just have gotten distracted while posting this is what was meant to go in there. There’s no spin here, just the record as it stands. The BMA’s July 2024 council motion to publicly critique the Cass Review is still the only formal vote on record. Nothing since has replaced or reversed it. The so-called “change of stance” you’re describing wasn’t a new motion or endorsement — it was a decision to form a Task & Finish group to review the evidence. That’s neutrality, not acceptance. The “uproar” stories in the press were about internal disagreement, not a policy reversal. Even the articles you’re quoting acknowledge that the BMA “has not publicly reversed all their concerns.” Until the task group reports, the official position remains non-endorsement pending review. You can call that embarrassing if you like, but it’s still the truth. The BMA is reviewing Cass; it has not endorsed her findings. That isn’t “skin in the game,” it’s evidence. And yes, every other medical body welcomed the review — the idea of better data and research — but none have adopted Cass’s conclusions or implemented them as policy. Welcoming a review isn’t the same as endorsing its science.Did the BMA change their original stance? Thats all I'm saying. So did they? Mrs x" Butter wouldn’t melt in the BMA’s mouth. When have they ever lied, withheld information, or held the country to ransom?  | |||
"Did the BMA change their original stance? Thats all I'm saying. So did they? Mrs x" Officially, no. They announced a Task & Finish group to investigate the review further, and said their position may change once that work is complete. Until then, the only formal vote on record is still the one rejecting the Cass Review’s findings. Feel free to point me to an official statement saying otherwise in case I’ve missed it. | |||
"Did the BMA change their original stance? Thats all I'm saying. So did they? Mrs x Officially, no. They announced a Task & Finish group to investigate the review further, and said their position may change once that work is complete. Until then, the only formal vote on record is still the one rejecting the Cass Review’s findings. Feel free to point me to an official statement saying otherwise in case I’ve missed it." what do you disagree with the Cass report | |||
"Did the BMA change their original stance? Thats all I'm saying. So did they? Mrs x Officially, no. They announced a Task & Finish group to investigate the review further, and said their position may change once that work is complete. Until then, the only formal vote on record is still the one rejecting the Cass Review’s findings. Feel free to point me to an official statement saying otherwise in case I’ve missed it." You are very disingenuous, you know they did, you are too emotional due to your desire for all things Trans to argue with. Hope you and your AI have a wonderful time on here, you deserve each other, Mrs x | |||
"You are very disingenuous, you know they did, you are too emotional due to your desire for all things Trans to argue with. Hope you and your AI have a wonderful time on here, you deserve each other, Mrs x" If the reality is as you say, you’ll be able to point to something showing they actually changed position — not just that less than 1% of potential members disagreed. Until there’s an official statement or new vote reversing their previous motion, the record still stands. | |||
"To pick the first one in your very long list, here's the detailed response from the RCPsych: https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2024/04/22/detailed-response-to-the-cass-review%27s-final-report Reading that I see a lot of "we endorse" and "strongly agree" and "needs to be acted upon". Where in that statement do you see criticism of the Cass Report? Do you genuinely think the statement reads as "polite and procedural" but not actively agreeing?" "You’re right that the RCPsych statement uses phrases like “we endorse” and “we strongly agree,” but look at what those phrases actually attach to. They endorse the recommendations to improve research, data collection, and service quality — not Cass’s interpretation of evidence or her conclusions about medical treatment. The College literally says: “We strongly agree with the Cass Review’s recommendation that there is a need for robust evidence on the risks and benefits of medical interventions.” That isn’t support for the findings — it’s agreement that more evidence is needed before drawing conclusions. Nowhere in that press release does the College adopt Cass’s position that the existing evidence is too weak to justify treatment or that puberty blockers should be restricted. They’re endorsing the goal of gathering better data, not the content of Cass’s analysis. That’s the distinction. Saying “we endorse the need for more evidence and holistic services” isn’t the same as endorsing the report itself. It’s agreeing that more information would be useful, not that Cass’s findings were correct." They say in that statement "It is a comprehensive and evidence-based assessment that needs to be acted upon ...". You can't get a much better endorsement than that, and they've said that there was enough evidence for the findings to be considered 'evidence based'. Earlier on you said that the RCPsych was critical of the Cass Report. Now you're claiming that it's the things they don't say which carry the import. It's clear that you are cherry picking and hoping that no one actually checks up on what you post. But having investigated some of your claims, I now have a good idea of the level of veracity to expect from you. This equips me with a useful lens through which to view any future posts of yours. | |||
"They say in that statement "It is a comprehensive and evidence-based assessment that needs to be acted upon ...". You can't get a much better endorsement than that, and they've said that there was enough evidence for the findings to be considered 'evidence based'. Earlier on you said that the RCPsych was critical of the Cass Report. Now you're claiming that it's the things they don't say which carry the import. It's clear that you are cherry picking and hoping that no one actually checks up on what you post. But having investigated some of your claims, I now have a good idea of the level of veracity to expect from you. This equips me with a useful lens through which to view any future posts of yours." This is exhausting, because it feels like you’re arguing with something I never said. I’ve been clear from the start — they welcomed and endorsed the idea of the review. What they didn’t endorse were the findings and recommendations that would actually change clinical practice. Saying a report is “comprehensive” or “needs to be acted upon” isn’t the same as saying “we endorse all its conclusions.” If that were true, they’d have implemented those conclusions. They haven’t. Polite language in a press release isn’t policy adoption. | |||
"You are very disingenuous, you know they did, you are too emotional due to your desire for all things Trans to argue with. Hope you and your AI have a wonderful time on here, you deserve each other, Mrs x If the reality is as you say, you’ll be able to point to something showing they actually changed position — not just that less than 1% of potential members disagreed. Until there’s an official statement or new vote reversing their previous motion, the record still stands." This is from AI when I asked did the BMA change it's position from its original stance. "In July 2024, the BMA’s UK Council voted a motion to publicly critique the Cass Review and called for the implementation of its recommendations to be paused pending further evaluation. On 31 July 2024, the BMA issued a press release confirming that it was establishing a “task & finish” group to carry out an evaluation of the Review. Later, the BMA clarified that it would retain a neutral stance on the recommendations of the Cass Review, while its task & finish group carries out the evaluation. Thus, the BMA moved from a stance of critique/opposition (or “pause implementation”) to a neutral position pending its own evaluation. This constitutes a change in their formal stance. " So yeah they changed their stance. Expecting you to slip on gold hotpants about now, Mrs x | |||
"This is from AI when I asked did the BMA change it's position from its original stance. "In July 2024, the BMA’s UK Council voted a motion to publicly critique the Cass Review and called for the implementation of its recommendations to be paused pending further evaluation. On 31 July 2024, the BMA issued a press release confirming that it was establishing a “task & finish” group to carry out an evaluation of the Review. Later, the BMA clarified that it would retain a neutral stance on the recommendations of the Cass Review, while its task & finish group carries out the evaluation. Thus, the BMA moved from a stance of critique/opposition (or “pause implementation”) to a neutral position pending its own evaluation. This constitutes a change in their formal stance. " So yeah they changed their stance. Expecting you to slip on gold hotpants about now, Mrs x" So you can cite or quote that statement then? Because if that wording exists in an official BMA release — not an AI summary, not a paraphrase, but their own published statement — I’ll happily acknowledge they’ve moved from critique to non-endorsement. Until then, it remains officially critique. If that statement exists, then — and only then — does it become non-endorsement. | |||
"This is from AI when I asked did the BMA change it's position from its original stance. "In July 2024, the BMA’s UK Council voted a motion to publicly critique the Cass Review and called for the implementation of its recommendations to be paused pending further evaluation. On 31 July 2024, the BMA issued a press release confirming that it was establishing a “task & finish” group to carry out an evaluation of the Review. Later, the BMA clarified that it would retain a neutral stance on the recommendations of the Cass Review, while its task & finish group carries out the evaluation. Thus, the BMA moved from a stance of critique/opposition (or “pause implementation”) to a neutral position pending its own evaluation. This constitutes a change in their formal stance. " So yeah they changed their stance. Expecting you to slip on gold hotpants about now, Mrs x So you can cite or quote that statement then? Because if that wording exists in an official BMA release — not an AI summary, not a paraphrase, but their own published statement — I’ll happily acknowledge they’ve moved from critique to non-endorsement. Until then, it remains officially critique. If that statement exists, then — and only then — does it become non-endorsement." Why are you leaning so heavily on what a union thinks? | |||
"This is from AI when I asked did the BMA change it's position from its original stance. "In July 2024, the BMA’s UK Council voted a motion to publicly critique the Cass Review and called for the implementation of its recommendations to be paused pending further evaluation. On 31 July 2024, the BMA issued a press release confirming that it was establishing a “task & finish” group to carry out an evaluation of the Review. Later, the BMA clarified that it would retain a neutral stance on the recommendations of the Cass Review, while its task & finish group carries out the evaluation. Thus, the BMA moved from a stance of critique/opposition (or “pause implementation”) to a neutral position pending its own evaluation. This constitutes a change in their formal stance. " So yeah they changed their stance. Expecting you to slip on gold hotpants about now, Mrs x So you can cite or quote that statement then? Because if that wording exists in an official BMA release — not an AI summary, not a paraphrase, but their own published statement — I’ll happily acknowledge they’ve moved from critique to non-endorsement. Until then, it remains officially critique. If that statement exists, then — and only then — does it become non-endorsement." From the New Statesman: The BMA turns away from rejecting the Cass Report. The doctors’ union has voted to retain a neutral position on the issue... he British Medical Association (BMA) has reversed its decision to call for a pause in implementing the recommendations of the Cass Review, the New Statesman can reveal. It follows intense criticism of the doctors’ union after this publication exposed its discussions regarding the rejection of the findings of Dr Hilary Cass’s independent review into gender identity services for children and young people... An open letter condemning the BMA’s stance followed, gaining more than 1,500 signatures, around 1,000 of which were from BMA members. The BMA was the only major medical group in the UK to consider rejecting Cass. Supportive statements have been issued by the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the Association of Clinical Psychologists. Many BMA members were dismayed, some resigning their membership in protest. Signatories to the letter accused the union of failing to follow an evidence-based approach to medicine. The letter, shown first to the New Statesman, criticised the process behind the BMA’s decision as “opaque and secretive” and said the motion did “not reflect the views of the wider membership, whose opinion you did not seek”. After months of criticism and negative press coverage, it would seem the BMA has now listened. Earlier this week, the BMA’s council members voted to “retain a neutral position on the recommendations of the Cass Review… while a BMA task and finish group undertakes its own evaluation”... Some of those who were critical of the BMA’s earlier stance are relieved. Dr Louise Irvine, who organised the open letter condemning the original motion, told the New Statesman, “I welcome the BMA’s decision to REVERSE its opposition to the Cass Review and adopt a position of neutrality. Its PREVIOUS POSITION… has damaged the reputation of the union and its commitment to evidence-based medicine. I hope this change can help the BMA to earn it back.”" So as you can see from this article, the NMA changed position from their earlier stance. Mrs x | |||
"So as you can see from this article, the NMA changed position from their earlier stance. Mrs x" You’re right — the BMA has now officially adopted a neutral position while its task and finish group carries out the evaluation. Thank you for pointing me toward the article; it led me to the BMA’s own statement confirming that stance. In case you’re interested, here’s the full BMA press release from 26 September 2024, which gives the full context: BMA confirms support for undertaking its evaluation of the Cass Review from a position of neutrality by BMA media team — Published: Thursday 26 September 2024 The BMA’s Council of members has voted to confirm the Association will retain a neutral position on the recommendations of the Cass Review of gender identity services for children and young people whilst a BMA task and finish group undertakes its own evaluation. The Cass Review has garnered controversy since its publication in April. While welcomed by many, others – including patients, their families, academics, scientists, legal experts, and some members of the British Medical Association – voiced concerns. Earlier in the summer, BMA Council members voted in favour of carrying out an evidence-led evaluation of the Review. A further vote by the Council earlier this week clarified that the BMA will approach its work neutrally. Professor Phil Banfield, Chair of Council, said: “The BMA is not aiming to replicate the Cass Review. The Chair of our task and finish group has set out to Council how we will listen to those with lived experience either as patients or as clinicians, consider the link between evidence and recommendation, and compare the recommendations with the actions or strategies that have arisen from them. “While considerable focus has been placed on access to puberty blockers, the Cass Review also included wide-ranging recommendations around care for children and young people with gender dysphoria. “According to the founding principles of the BMA, our evaluation will be evidence-led, starting from a position of neutrality. I cannot predict the outcome of our evaluation. However, I am clear that we will hear different perspectives, always prioritising the needs of transgender children and young people, who deserve the very best care.” That said, it doesn’t change my broader point: neutrality isn’t endorsement. The BMA has not endorsed the Cass Review, and there’s no indication yet that it intends to. | |||
"So as you can see from this article, the NMA changed position from their earlier stance. Mrs x You’re right — the BMA has now officially adopted a neutral position while its task and finish group carries out the evaluation. Thank you for pointing me toward the article; it led me to the BMA’s own statement confirming that stance. In case you’re interested, here’s the full BMA press release from 26 September 2024, which gives the full context: BMA confirms support for undertaking its evaluation of the Cass Review from a position of neutrality by BMA media team — Published: Thursday 26 September 2024 The BMA’s Council of members has voted to confirm the Association will retain a neutral position on the recommendations of the Cass Review of gender identity services for children and young people whilst a BMA task and finish group undertakes its own evaluation. The Cass Review has garnered controversy since its publication in April. While welcomed by many, others – including patients, their families, academics, scientists, legal experts, and some members of the British Medical Association – voiced concerns. Earlier in the summer, BMA Council members voted in favour of carrying out an evidence-led evaluation of the Review. A further vote by the Council earlier this week clarified that the BMA will approach its work neutrally. Professor Phil Banfield, Chair of Council, said: “The BMA is not aiming to replicate the Cass Review. The Chair of our task and finish group has set out to Council how we will listen to those with lived experience either as patients or as clinicians, consider the link between evidence and recommendation, and compare the recommendations with the actions or strategies that have arisen from them. “While considerable focus has been placed on access to puberty blockers, the Cass Review also included wide-ranging recommendations around care for children and young people with gender dysphoria. “According to the founding principles of the BMA, our evaluation will be evidence-led, starting from a position of neutrality. I cannot predict the outcome of our evaluation. However, I am clear that we will hear different perspectives, always prioritising the needs of transgender children and young people, who deserve the very best care.” That said, it doesn’t change my broader point: neutrality isn’t endorsement. The BMA has not endorsed the Cass Review, and there’s no indication yet that it intends to. " You are flogging a dead horse, I've never said neutrality is endorsement, thats you. I dont need help with anything from the BMA, I know what their position was and currently is. Turns out I can think for myself, Mrs x | |||
"You are flogging a dead horse, I've never said neutrality is endorsement, thats you. I dont need help with anything from the BMA, I know what their position was and currently is. Turns out I can think for myself, Mrs x" Glad we agree then — neutrality isn’t endorsement, and that’s all I’ve said from the start. | |||
"You are flogging a dead horse, I've never said neutrality is endorsement, thats you. I dont need help with anything from the BMA, I know what their position was and currently is. Turns out I can think for myself, Mrs x Glad we agree then — neutrality isn’t endorsement, and that’s all I’ve said from the start." Thats far from what you've said at the start. Everything i said tge BMA have changed their original stance you argued with me. Now I've posted you to an article that shows this, you've changed your stance, Mrs x | |||
"Thats far from what you've said at the start. Everything i said tge BMA have changed their original stance you argued with me. Now I've posted you to an article that shows this, you've changed your stance, Mrs x" From the start, I’ve said that while most organisations may have endorsed the goal of the Cass Review, they did not endorse the outcome of it. That hasn’t changed. The BMA shifting to a neutral stance doesn’t make them supporters of the findings — it just means they’re still evaluating them. That’s not a shift in my focus; it’s exactly the same distinction I’ve been making all along. | |||
"Thats far from what you've said at the start. Everything i said tge BMA have changed their original stance you argued with me. Now I've posted you to an article that shows this, you've changed your stance, Mrs x" Typical AI: Human: How many R's in strawberry? AI: (With confidence) There are four R's in strawberry. Human: But there aren't, are there? AI: You're right! There are two R's in strawberry. Human: No... There are three. Count them. AI: Actually, that's true! So we can agree that there are four R's in strawberry, as I've told you all along. | |||
"Thats far from what you've said at the start. Everything i said tge BMA have changed their original stance you argued with me. Now I've posted you to an article that shows this, you've changed your stance, Mrs x Typical AI: Human: How many R's in strawberry? AI: (With confidence) There are four R's in strawberry. Human: But there aren't, are there? AI: You're right! There are two R's in strawberry. Human: No... There are three. Count them. AI: Actually, that's true! So we can agree that there are four R's in strawberry, as I've told you all along." This is from my very first post: “Yes, many organisations endorsed the goal of the Cass Review — and who wouldn’t? On paper, it was meant to improve healthcare for trans youth. But that’s entirely separate from endorsing the findings, the methodology used to reach them, or actually implementing anything from the report. Some of those endorsements were little more than the professional equivalent of smiling and nodding politely while quietly ignoring what was said.” See? I said it at the very beginning. The distinction between endorsing the goal and endorsing the findings hasn’t changed — it’s been there from the start. | |||
"Thats far from what you've said at the start. Everything i said tge BMA have changed their original stance you argued with me. Now I've posted you to an article that shows this, you've changed your stance, Mrs x From the start, I’ve said that while most organisations may have endorsed the goal of the Cass Review, they did not endorse the outcome of it. That hasn’t changed. The BMA shifting to a neutral stance doesn’t make them supporters of the findings — it just means they’re still evaluating them. That’s not a shift in my focus; it’s exactly the same distinction I’ve been making all along." But you never accepted when I said the BMA have changed stance. What's really funny is that when you put up your post, giving all the individual data, the source on The Guardian actually confirmed what I was saying. Funny how when you say it was all your own work, that article was provided by you but gave me the evidence to back up what I'm saying. It's almost as if you had never read it but still quoted data from it. Yeah this was an AI post, no matter how much you deny it. Mrs x | |||
"But you never accepted when I said the BMA have changed stance. What's really funny is that when you put up your post, giving all the individual data, the source on The Guardian actually confirmed what I was saying. Funny how when you say it was all your own work, that article was provided by you but gave me the evidence to back up what I'm saying. It's almost as if you had never read it but still quoted data from it. Yeah this was an AI post, no matter how much you deny it. Mrs x" Yeah, but then I asked you to provide your source. You avoided it for a while, and as soon as you shared the New Statesman link, It allowed me to find the BMA’s own statement, read it, and conceded the point. That’s how debate works — you make a claim, back it with evidence, review that evidence, and evaluate. Which is precisely what I did. You keep calling that “AI,” but what actually happened was me checking your source, confirming it, and acknowledging the update. That’s called integrity, not automation. | |||
"Thats far from what you've said at the start. Everything i said tge BMA have changed their original stance you argued with me. Now I've posted you to an article that shows this, you've changed your stance, Mrs x From the start, I’ve said that while most organisations may have endorsed the goal of the Cass Review, they did not endorse the outcome of it. That hasn’t changed. The BMA shifting to a neutral stance doesn’t make them supporters of the findings — it just means they’re still evaluating them. That’s not a shift in my focus; it’s exactly the same distinction I’ve been making all along." Not a shift in your focus, again I cannot make out if its arrogance or ignorance. Time after time you refused to listen to me, when I said that the changed stance and why that was damning for them. I quoted The Guardian article your AI sourced your data for the BMA from. This article was reprinted from The Observer, saying exactly the same but still you deny and deflect. It took me quoting The New Statesman to prove my point. Yet you keep mini.ising I was correct by deflecting to your point about endorsement. It's a bit sad really. You are correct that the BMA has not endorsed the Cass report but you dont want to admit that their first stance of wanting to say they weren't endorsing it, to now saying they are neutral about it, is a huge u-turn and has drawn huge criticism for them from large swathes of the medical establishment. But you wont admit that haha, Mrs x | |||
"But you never accepted when I said the BMA have changed stance. What's really funny is that when you put up your post, giving all the individual data, the source on The Guardian actually confirmed what I was saying. Funny how when you say it was all your own work, that article was provided by you but gave me the evidence to back up what I'm saying. It's almost as if you had never read it but still quoted data from it. Yeah this was an AI post, no matter how much you deny it. Mrs x Yeah, but then I asked you to provide your source. You avoided it for a while, and as soon as you shared the New Statesman link, It allowed me to find the BMA’s own statement, read it, and conceded the point. That’s how debate works — you make a claim, back it with evidence, review that evidence, and evaluate. Which is precisely what I did. You keep calling that “AI,” but what actually happened was me checking your source, confirming it, and acknowledging the update. That’s called integrity, not automation." Never read The Guardian article you sourced for your comments on the BMA then? Thats a joke, if you expect anyone to think you sourced this, you didnt even know ow whats in the article. Why would you source that, if you had read it, thats not integrity, its far from it. In academia its plagiarism, Mrs x | |||
"Not a shift in your focus, again I cannot make out if its arrogance or ignorance. Time after time you refused to listen to me, when I said that the changed stance and why that was damning for them. I quoted The Guardian article your AI sourced your data for the BMA from. This article was reprinted from The Observer, saying exactly the same but still you deny and deflect. It took me quoting The New Statesman to prove my point. Yet you keep mini.ising I was correct by deflecting to your point about endorsement. It's a bit sad really. You are correct that the BMA has not endorsed the Cass report but you dont want to admit that their first stance of wanting to say they weren't endorsing it, to now saying they are neutral about it, is a huge u-turn and has drawn huge criticism for them from large swathes of the medical establishment. But you wont admit that haha, Mrs x" I did acknowledge that shift — I said clearly that the BMA moved from critique to neutrality once I’d read their official statement. What you seem frustrated about is that I didn’t take your word for it before verifying the source. That’s not denial — that’s just how evidence-based discussion works. And yes, I fully agree it was a significant shift for the BMA — but it’s still not an endorsement, and that distinction matters. As for the “huge swathes of the medical establishment” you mentioned, the verifiable data doesn’t support that. The only confirmed figure is around 1,500 signatories, roughly 1,000 BMA members, who signed an open letter criticising the original vote — less than 1% of the total membership. Beyond that, it’s mostly media framing words like “uproar” or “fracture.” Those are opinions, not data. | |||
"Never read The Guardian article you sourced for your comments on the BMA then? Thats a joke, if you expect anyone to think you sourced this, you didnt even know ow whats in the article. Why would you source that, if you had read it, thats not integrity, its far from it. In academia its plagiarism, Mrs x" You’re assuming I didn’t read it when the reality is simpler — I verified it against the original sources instead of taking it at face value. And to be honest, I think it’s entirely reasonable for a trans person to treat The Guardian’s reporting on gender issues with scepticism. They’ve consistently leaned anti-trans, just not as openly hostile as some of the tabloids. That’s exactly why I didn’t treat their write-up as gospel — I went to the BMA’s own statement and then updated my post accordingly. That isn’t plagiarism; it’s due diligence. It’s how verification is supposed to work. | |||
"Not a shift in your focus, again I cannot make out if its arrogance or ignorance. Time after time you refused to listen to me, when I said that the changed stance and why that was damning for them. I quoted The Guardian article your AI sourced your data for the BMA from. This article was reprinted from The Observer, saying exactly the same but still you deny and deflect. It took me quoting The New Statesman to prove my point. Yet you keep mini.ising I was correct by deflecting to your point about endorsement. It's a bit sad really. You are correct that the BMA has not endorsed the Cass report but you dont want to admit that their first stance of wanting to say they weren't endorsing it, to now saying they are neutral about it, is a huge u-turn and has drawn huge criticism for them from large swathes of the medical establishment. But you wont admit that haha, Mrs x I did acknowledge that shift — I said clearly that the BMA moved from critique to neutrality once I’d read their official statement. What you seem frustrated about is that I didn’t take your word for it before verifying the source. That’s not denial — that’s just how evidence-based discussion works. And yes, I fully agree it was a significant shift for the BMA — but it’s still not an endorsement, and that distinction matters. As for the “huge swathes of the medical establishment” you mentioned, the verifiable data doesn’t support that. The only confirmed figure is around 1,500 signatories, roughly 1,000 BMA members, who signed an open letter criticising the original vote — less than 1% of the total membership. Beyond that, it’s mostly media framing words like “uproar” or “fracture.” Those are opinions, not data." Verifying the source??? It was your fucking source, sorry your Aisha source which you couldn't be arsed to read. The large swathes doesn't refer to the dissent in its own ranks but that of other medical bodies but you are to bust deflecting to think, how do you put it... critically, you couldn't make this up, Mrs x | |||
"Never read The Guardian article you sourced for your comments on the BMA then? Thats a joke, if you expect anyone to think you sourced this, you didnt even know ow whats in the article. Why would you source that, if you had read it, thats not integrity, its far from it. In academia its plagiarism, Mrs x You’re assuming I didn’t read it when the reality is simpler — I verified it against the original sources instead of taking it at face value. And to be honest, I think it’s entirely reasonable for a trans person to treat The Guardian’s reporting on gender issues with scepticism. They’ve consistently leaned anti-trans, just not as openly hostile as some of the tabloids. That’s exactly why I didn’t treat their write-up as gospel — I went to the BMA’s own statement and then updated my post accordingly. That isn’t plagiarism; it’s due diligence. It’s how verification is supposed to work." But you didnt do that. I told you the a article was originally from the Observer, is that anti-trans too. You are just making it up as you go along now, Mrs x | |||
"Never read The Guardian article you sourced for your comments on the BMA then? Thats a joke, if you expect anyone to think you sourced this, you didnt even know ow whats in the article. Why would you source that, if you had read it, thats not integrity, its far from it. In academia its plagiarism, Mrs x You’re assuming I didn’t read it when the reality is simpler — I verified it against the original sources instead of taking it at face value. And to be honest, I think it’s entirely reasonable for a trans person to treat The Guardian’s reporting on gender issues with scepticism. They’ve consistently leaned anti-trans, just not as openly hostile as some of the tabloids. That’s exactly why I didn’t treat their write-up as gospel — I went to the BMA’s own statement and then updated my post accordingly. That isn’t plagiarism; it’s due diligence. It’s how verification is supposed to work.But you didnt do that. I told you the a article was originally from the Observer, is that anti-trans too. You are just making it up as you go along now, Mrs x" So you are saying you quoted a source, you didnt believe in? Do you have any idea how referencing works? Have you done this before at any study of Higher Educational level because apparently you suck at it. Honestly never seen anyone trip themselves up so much. Mrs x | |||
| |||
"When I said “verifying the source,” I was referring to the New Statesman link you eventually provided. You’re right that the Guardian/Observer article I cited earlier also mentioned the change, but I initially discarded that point because I couldn’t verify it on the BMA’s own site. And let’s be honest — it wouldn’t be the first time a paper of record has used hyperbole when reporting on trans issues. Once you shared the New Statesman piece, I checked again, found the official BMA press release, and then acknowledged the shift. That’s not contradiction; that’s what verifying evidence actually looks like." From one of your posts on this... "... as soon as you shared the New Statesman link, It allowed me to find the BMA’s own statement, read it, and conceded the point." New Statesman not The Guardian. But then in another post... "You’re assuming I didn’t read it when the reality is simpler — I verified it against the original sources instead of taking it at face value. And to be honest, I think it’s entirely reasonable for a trans person to treat The Guardian’s reporting on gender issues with scepticism. They’ve consistently leaned anti-trans, just not as openly hostile as some of the tabloids" So here you are saying you verified The Guardian. So which is it because you fucked me off when I have you The Guardian, which should have ended this issue immediately because who in their right mind quotes stuff from a source they dont believe in. Oh you do. You are going to need a bigger shovel if you are going to keep digging. Just stop now, hold your hands up and we can all move on. Mrs x | |||
"From one of your posts on this... "... as soon as you shared the New Statesman link, It allowed me to find the BMA’s own statement, read it, and conceded the point." New Statesman not The Guardian. But then in another post... "You’re assuming I didn’t read it when the reality is simpler — I verified it against the original sources instead of taking it at face value. And to be honest, I think it’s entirely reasonable for a trans person to treat The Guardian’s reporting on gender issues with scepticism. They’ve consistently leaned anti-trans, just not as openly hostile as some of the tabloids" So here you are saying you verified The Guardian. So which is it because you fucked me off when I have you The Guardian, which should have ended this issue immediately because who in their right mind quotes stuff from a source they dont believe in. Oh you do. You are going to need a bigger shovel if you are going to keep digging. Just stop now, hold your hands up and we can all move on. Mrs x" You’re twisting two separate statements together as if they’re contradictory when they’re not. I verified that The Guardian mentioned the critique — I never said I trusted their framing of it. That’s why I waited until I could confirm it directly from the BMA before conceding the shift. Seriously, what is your obsession with trying to turn a normal process of fact-checking into some grand “gotcha”? I acknowledged the update as soon as it was verified — that’s how integrity works. You’re acting like honesty is something to be punished. | |||
"From one of your posts on this... "... as soon as you shared the New Statesman link, It allowed me to find the BMA’s own statement, read it, and conceded the point." New Statesman not The Guardian. But then in another post... "You’re assuming I didn’t read it when the reality is simpler — I verified it against the original sources instead of taking it at face value. And to be honest, I think it’s entirely reasonable for a trans person to treat The Guardian’s reporting on gender issues with scepticism. They’ve consistently leaned anti-trans, just not as openly hostile as some of the tabloids" So here you are saying you verified The Guardian. So which is it because you fucked me off when I have you The Guardian, which should have ended this issue immediately because who in their right mind quotes stuff from a source they dont believe in. Oh you do. You are going to need a bigger shovel if you are going to keep digging. Just stop now, hold your hands up and we can all move on. Mrs x You’re twisting two separate statements together as if they’re contradictory when they’re not. I verified that The Guardian mentioned the critique — I never said I trusted their framing of it. That’s why I waited until I could confirm it directly from the BMA before conceding the shift. Seriously, what is your obsession with trying to turn a normal process of fact-checking into some grand “gotcha”? I acknowledged the update as soon as it was verified — that’s how integrity works. You’re acting like honesty is something to be punished." Honest but you are not. One minute its The New Statesman the next its The Guardian. Everyone can see your posts you do realise this. So you are saying you sourced your info on the BMA here from The Guardian, from the same newspaper you dont trust? So go be honest, why did you do that? Mrs x | |||
"Honest but you are not. One minute its The New Statesman the next its The Guardian. Everyone can see your posts you do realise this. So you are saying you sourced your info on the BMA here from The Guardian, from the same newspaper you dont trust? So go be honest, why did you do that? Mrs x" Because I separate reporting from verification. I got the information about the critique from The Guardian, checked it against the BMA’s own site, and confirmed that part was accurate. At that point I couldn’t find evidence of the later change, so I assumed The Guardian’s claim about a reversal was exaggerated — which, given their track record on trans coverage, was a reasonable assumption. When you shared The New Statesman link, it led me to the BMA press release that confirmed the shift, and I immediately acknowledged it. That’s not dishonesty — that’s literally how responsible verification works. You’re treating careful fact-checking like it’s a crime, and I genuinely don’t understand why. | |||
"Honest but you are not. One minute its The New Statesman the next its The Guardian. Everyone can see your posts you do realise this. So you are saying you sourced your info on the BMA here from The Guardian, from the same newspaper you dont trust? So go be honest, why did you do that? Mrs x Because I separate reporting from verification. I got the information about the critique from The Guardian, checked it against the BMA’s own site, and confirmed that part was accurate. At that point I couldn’t find evidence of the later change, so I assumed The Guardian’s claim about a reversal was exaggerated — which, given their track record on trans coverage, was a reasonable assumption. When you shared The New Statesman link, it led me to the BMA press release that confirmed the shift, and I immediately acknowledged it. That’s not dishonesty — that’s literally how responsible verification works. You’re treating careful fact-checking like it’s a crime, and I genuinely don’t understand why." So why quote a source you didnt believe in. Nobody does that. You reference stuff that evidences facts and theories which support your argument, not the other way around. I just hope others, who use referencing in their own studies, see this post and tell you something similar because you dont believe me. You are telling me you used a source of evidence you didnt believe was credible and yet you want everyone to think your argument is credible. It just doesn't make sense. It's the equivalent of cooking a meal, with ingredients you know are rotten and then you try to tell everyone to taste it because its yummy even though you believe it to be shit. It doesn't make sense, listen to what you are saying. Mrs x | |||
"So why quote a source you didnt believe in. Nobody does that. You reference stuff that evidences facts and theories which support your argument, not the other way around. I just hope others, who use referencing in their own studies, see this post and tell you something similar because you dont believe me. You are telling me you used a source of evidence you didnt believe was credible and yet you want everyone to think your argument is credible. It just doesn't make sense. It's the equivalent of cooking a meal, with ingredients you know are rotten and then you try to tell everyone to taste it because its yummy even though you believe it to be shit. It doesn't make sense, listen to what you are saying. Mrs x" Because credibility isn’t binary — that’s exactly the point. You can verify accurate facts from a source without endorsing its editorial stance. The Guardian’s reporting contained verifiable information, so I cross-checked it. The context and framing I didn’t trust — and that’s why I verified it directly with the BMA before accepting it. That’s not using “rotten ingredients”; that’s checking the label before you cook. | |||
"So why quote a source you didnt believe in. Nobody does that. You reference stuff that evidences facts and theories which support your argument, not the other way around. I just hope others, who use referencing in their own studies, see this post and tell you something similar because you dont believe me. You are telling me you used a source of evidence you didnt believe was credible and yet you want everyone to think your argument is credible. It just doesn't make sense. It's the equivalent of cooking a meal, with ingredients you know are rotten and then you try to tell everyone to taste it because its yummy even though you believe it to be shit. It doesn't make sense, listen to what you are saying. Mrs x Because credibility isn’t binary — that’s exactly the point. You can verify accurate facts from a source without endorsing its editorial stance. The Guardian’s reporting contained verifiable information, so I cross-checked it. The context and framing I didn’t trust — and that’s why I verified it directly with the BMA before accepting it. That’s not using “rotten ingredients”; that’s checking the label before you cook." Thats just bollocks. You've only recently, in the last couple of hours accepted what I said was true but you claim you didn't trust The Giardians piece. Yet you cited this as a source in your OP, 24 hours ago. You know when you didnt believe what it was saying. Very strange indeed. So what reference system promotes the use of sources you believe to be false, when you actually want to evidence something as being true? AI that and get back to us, Mrs x Mrs x | |||
"Thats just bollocks. You've only recently, in the last couple of hours accepted what I said was true but you claim you didn't trust The Giardians piece. Yet you cited this as a source in your OP, 24 hours ago. You know when you didnt believe what it was saying. Very strange indeed. So what reference system promotes the use of sources you believe to be false, when you actually want to evidence something as being true? AI that and get back to us, Mrs x Mrs x" “That’s just bollocks” — in your opinion. Which part of the carefully laid-out timeline are you struggling with? I cited The Guardian because it contained verifiable information about the critique. At the time, I couldn’t confirm the later reversal, so I flagged that part as unverified. When I did confirm it — through the BMA’s own statement — I updated my position accordingly. And you’re also presenting a false dichotomy: doubting one element of an article doesn’t mean doubting the whole thing. That’s exactly why fact-checking exists — to separate what’s accurate from what isn’t. | |||
"Thats just bollocks. You've only recently, in the last couple of hours accepted what I said was true but you claim you didn't trust The Giardians piece. Yet you cited this as a source in your OP, 24 hours ago. You know when you didnt believe what it was saying. Very strange indeed. So what reference system promotes the use of sources you believe to be false, when you actually want to evidence something as being true? AI that and get back to us, Mrs x Mrs x “That’s just bollocks” — in your opinion. Which part of the carefully laid-out timeline are you struggling with? I cited The Guardian because it contained verifiable information about the critique. At the time, I couldn’t confirm the later reversal, so I flagged that part as unverified. When I did confirm it — through the BMA’s own statement — I updated my position accordingly. And you’re also presenting a false dichotomy: doubting one element of an article doesn’t mean doubting the whole thing. That’s exactly why fact-checking exists — to separate what’s accurate from what isn’t." 14 hours ago you said this... "The BMA’s July 2024 council motion to publicly critique the Cass Review is still the only formal vote on record. Nothing since has replaced or reversed it. The so-called “change of stance” you’re describing wasn’t a new motion or endorsement — it was a decision to form a Task & Finish group to review the evidence. That’s neutrality, not acceptance." So you quote the BMA's original stance of 'critique' of the Cass report. You then try to suggest there was no change of stance by calling this a 'so called change of stance'. However you finish this paragraph by saying 'Thats neutrality, not acceptance', which is very peculiar given that, Neutrality is exactly the position the BMA have adopted after changing their stance. Don't you find it strange that you use a word thats the same as the word used by the BMA yet you claim its not a change of stance. It's almost as if you've read this word somewhere but not understood it in the context of the BMA's newly adopted position. Very strange, made stranger when you posted something a whole two hours earlier, 16 hours ago and you actual said there was a change of stance. You said... "The later shift to a “neutral” stance wasn’t a reversal of that decision" So you are saying that there was a change of stance and there's that word 'neutral' again. But all day through the back and forward on this thread you denied it when I said there had been a change in stance up to 3 hours ago when you said... "You’re right — the BMA has now officially adopted a neutral position while its task and finish group carries out the evaluation. Thank you for pointing me toward the article; it led me to the BMA’s own statement confirming that stance" Strange again, when you look at what you said earlier about now change, then there was a change and on both occasions you mention it being a 'neutral' change. It's like you are just posting stuff without actual understanding what you are reading. Can I ask what part of The New Statesmens article led you to your epiphany about the BMA's change of stance. I'd love to low what this article contained tgat was substantially different from The Guardians article you yourself cited. Both seemed fairly similar in tone and content, Mrs x | |||
"Thats just bollocks. You've only recently, in the last couple of hours accepted what I said was true but you claim you didn't trust The Giardians piece. Yet you cited this as a source in your OP, 24 hours ago. You know when you didnt believe what it was saying. Very strange indeed. So what reference system promotes the use of sources you believe to be false, when you actually want to evidence something as being true? AI that and get back to us, Mrs x Mrs x “That’s just bollocks” — in your opinion. Which part of the carefully laid-out timeline are you struggling with? I cited The Guardian because it contained verifiable information about the critique. At the time, I couldn’t confirm the later reversal, so I flagged that part as unverified. When I did confirm it — through the BMA’s own statement — I updated my position accordingly. And you’re also presenting a false dichotomy: doubting one element of an article doesn’t mean doubting the whole thing. That’s exactly why fact-checking exists — to separate what’s accurate from what isn’t." Not struggling with any part of the timelineYou do know that the article from The Guardian is over a year old and was written about 20 days before the BMA changed its position to that of 'neutrality'. So you are citing stuff thats not only out of date but no longer accurate. Makes your statement about fact checking seem a little bit silly now. Didn't you think to do a little search about the BMA's current stance, you know as of today? Would have saved us both a lot of time and effort. But at least you've learnt a little bit about how fact checking works, and what bollocks actual looks like now. Mrs x | |||
"14 hours ago you said this... "The BMA’s July 2024 council motion to publicly critique the Cass Review is still the only formal vote on record. Nothing since has replaced or reversed it. The so-called “change of stance” you’re describing wasn’t a new motion or endorsement — it was a decision to form a Task & Finish group to review the evidence. That’s neutrality, not acceptance." So you quote the BMA's original stance of 'critique' of the Cass report. You then try to suggest there was no change of stance by calling this a 'so called change of stance'. However you finish this paragraph by saying 'Thats neutrality, not acceptance', which is very peculiar given that, Neutrality is exactly the position the BMA have adopted after changing their stance. Don't you find it strange that you use a word thats the same as the word used by the BMA yet you claim its not a change of stance. It's almost as if you've read this word somewhere but not understood it in the context of the BMA's newly adopted position. Very strange, made stranger when you posted something a whole two hours earlier, 16 hours ago and you actual said there was a change of stance. You said... "The later shift to a “neutral” stance wasn’t a reversal of that decision" So you are saying that there was a change of stance and there's that word 'neutral' again. But all day through the back and forward on this thread you denied it when I said there had been a change in stance up to 3 hours ago when you said... "You’re right — the BMA has now officially adopted a neutral position while its task and finish group carries out the evaluation. Thank you for pointing me toward the article; it led me to the BMA’s own statement confirming that stance" Strange again, when you look at what you said earlier about now change, then there was a change and on both occasions you mention it being a 'neutral' change. It's like you are just posting stuff without actual understanding what you are reading. Can I ask what part of The New Statesmens article led you to your epiphany about the BMA's change of stance. I'd love to low what this article contained tgat was substantially different from The Guardians article you yourself cited. Both seemed fairly similar in tone and content, Mrs x" I’ve already laid out the sequence clearly: Guardian → verification of critique → no confirmed reversal → later confirmed via BMA release linked in the New Statesman → acknowledged and updated. You keep treating that as contradiction when it’s just chronology. I’m done restating the same facts for you to reinterpret — anyone reading can follow the thread and see the timeline for themselves. I await your next twisting of this tired and repeated point | |||
"Not struggling with any part of the timelineYou do know that the article from The Guardian is over a year old and was written about 20 days before the BMA changed its position to that of 'neutrality'. So you are citing stuff thats not only out of date but no longer accurate. Makes your statement about fact checking seem a little bit silly now. Didn't you think to do a little search about the BMA's current stance, you know as of today? Would have saved us both a lot of time and effort. But at least you've learnt a little bit about how fact checking works, and what bollocks actual looks like now. Mrs x" Oh dear — you were already twisting while I was posting. Lucky me. The same answers as before cover this: I checked the BMA site at the time and didn’t see the statement. When I followed the link in the New Statesman piece and found it, I conceded the point. That’s about the tenth time, give or take, you’ve rephrased the same accusation — and it’s still wrong. I await your next twisting of this tired and twisted point. | |||
"Not struggling with any part of the timelineYou do know that the article from The Guardian is over a year old and was written about 20 days before the BMA changed its position to that of 'neutrality'. So you are citing stuff thats not only out of date but no longer accurate. Makes your statement about fact checking seem a little bit silly now. Didn't you think to do a little search about the BMA's current stance, you know as of today? Would have saved us both a lot of time and effort. But at least you've learnt a little bit about how fact checking works, and what bollocks actual looks like now. Mrs x Oh dear — you were already twisting while I was posting. Lucky me. The same answers as before cover this: I checked the BMA site at the time and didn’t see the statement. When I followed the link in the New Statesman piece and found it, I conceded the point. That’s about the tenth time, give or take, you’ve rephrased the same accusation — and it’s still wrong. I await your next twisting of this tired and twisted point." From your tone and content of your OP it would appear you are not a fan of the Cass report. So you set out your initial position and then gave a 'Detailed Breakdown' of the positions of various medical bodies to support your position. The 'crown jewels' in your argument against the Cass report was the initial position of the BMA, given that it was the only major medical body to not endorse the Cass report. Something you seemed quite proud about and repeated a number of times. 1st time... "The council vote from July 2024 still stands until the Task & Finish review concludes, and no new vote or statement has reversed it." 2nd time... "Until then, the only formal vote on record is still the one rejecting the Cass Review’s findings." 3rd time... "if that wording exists in an official BMA release — not an AI summary, not a paraphrase, but their own published statement — I’ll happily acknowledge they’ve moved from critique to non-endorsement. Until then, it remains officially critique". As part of this 'Detail Breakdown' you supplied citations for each of the medical bodies, which you used as evidence to support your claims about their positions regarding the Cass report. For the BMA's 'Detailed Breakdown' you cited an article, it was the only citation for the BMA and so I'd assume that this was the only piece of evidence you were relying on to support your position.- The Guardian, 7 Sep 2024 “BMA stance on Cass Review has damaged its reputation. This is where it gets a bit confusing. To cite an article normal means you rely in it for facts or theories to suit your position. Yet thats not what happened here. In fact the article was very critical of tge BMA and the stance it originally took. The article was so oppostional in this regard it just makes no sense to cite it. This was plain to see when ever facts were quoted back at you from this article, you would argue against them. This is not how I remember referencing to be, unless you were referencing something to show an opposing view. But as this was the only citation for the BMA surely its a fair assumption that it would be cited to support your argument but it quickly became obvious that this was not the case. It got stranger though, when the issue of the BMA having to alter its stance. You then slated your own source, when I accused you of not reading your own citation, by saying... "You’re assuming I didn’t read it when the reality is simpler — I VERIFIED it against the original sources instead of taking it at face value. And to be honest, I think it’s entirely reasonable for a trans person to treat THE GUARDIANS’s reporting on gender issues with scepticism. They’ve consistently leaned anti-trans, just not as openly hostile as some of the tabloids. That’s exactly why I didn’t treat their write-up as gospel — I went to the BMA’s own statement and then updated my post accordingly." So your saying that you verified this article but didn't treat it as being a reliable source of evidence due to your belief it was Transphobic. Thats a really odd stance to take, citing something to support your argument and then criticising it saying you dont trust it. So why cite it in the first place? Maybe you didn't and someone or something did cite this to support their argument. You only changed your position on whether the BMA have actually changed their stance, after a quote an article from The New Stateesman which explicitly stated they had. What followed next was bizarre. There was this whole thing about verification of the sources and the fact checking of these sources. When I challenged you about the change of stance by the BMA and the authenticity of the sources you stated, because you only changed your position after I'd quoted from The New Statesman, you said you had verified and fact checked everything. "When I said “verifying the source,” I was referring to the New Statesman link you eventually provided. You’re right that the Guardian/Observer article I cited earlier ALSO MENTIONED THE CHANGE, but I initially discarded that point because I couldn’t verify it on the BMA’s own site. And let’s be honest — it wouldn’t be the first time a paper of record has used hyperbole when reporting on trans issues. Once you shared the New Statesman piece, I checked again, found the official BMA press release, and then acknowledged the shift. That’s not contradiction; that’s what verifying evidence actually looks like." This statement is evidence of you not being honest. This one comment within this quote proves this.. "You’re right that the Guardian/Observer article I cited earlier ALSO MENTIONED THIS CHANGE [in stance],". Firstly I never mention that The Guardian mentioned the BMA's change in stance. Secondly, The Giardian never mentioned the change of stance by the BMA because it was written about 2 weeks before the BMA published its decision to change stance. So it was IMPOSSIBLE for you to say that The Guardian mentioned this. It's just a blatant falsehood. This article in The Guardian is over a year old. It was written before any change in stance so its useless as a piece of evidence. So why did you rely on it, were you just hoping nobody else would bother reading g it. As a citation, its worse than useless. You then double downed on this by going on about verifying, fact checking and integrity. Really? Saying all this whilst your hand is stuffed deep inside the cookie jar of lies. So the real question is, how many other times have you done this and how can anyone trust anything you say. Is that 'twisty' enough for you? Mrs x | |||
| |||
"When I thought you’d said it was in the Guardian article, I took that at face value and explained how that could have happened. I was responding based on what I interpreted as true at the time. I had treated the Guardian piece carefully because of its history on trans issues, and I assumed I’d dismissed that part because I hadn’t seen it reflected on the BMA site. That’s not lying that’s good-faith reasoning. Over to you and as chubby checker said... let's twist again. " Chubby Checker? You not got a mirror? Haha Mrs x | |||
"When I thought you’d said it was in the Guardian article, I took that at face value and explained how that could have happened. I was responding based on what I interpreted as true at the time. I had treated the Guardian piece carefully because of its history on trans issues, and I assumed I’d dismissed that part because I hadn’t seen it reflected on the BMA site. That’s not lying that’s good-faith reasoning. Over to you and as chubby checker said... let's twist again. " You lied, ots simple Mrs x | |||
"Chubby Checker? You not got a mirror? Haha Mrs x" You do know Chubby Checker was a singer who released Let’s Twist Again in 1961, right? Or was that just meant as a personal jab? | |||
"You lied, ots simple Mrs x" If either of us has been acting in bad faith here, it isn’t me. I’ve explained my reasoning transparently at every step — you just don’t like that it doesn’t fit your narrative. | |||
"You lied, ots simple Mrs x If either of us has been acting in bad faith here, it isn’t me. I’ve explained my reasoning transparently at every step — you just don’t like that it doesn’t fit your narrative." What narrative is that? You said you seen the piece about the change of stance in The Guardian, thats a lie. Mrs x | |||
"Chubby Checker? You not got a mirror? Haha Mrs x You do know Chubby Checker was a singer who released Let’s Twist Again in 1961, right? Or was that just meant as a personal jab?" Personal jab???, I compared you to a srxy, blonde icon, you compared me to a fat dude... should have compared you to Pete Burns haha x | |||
"Personal jab???, I compared you to a srxy, blonde icon, you compared me to a fat dude... should have compared you to Pete Burns haha x" I didn’t compare you to anyone. It was a reference to the song title because you keep twisting the argument. If you read it as anything else, that says more about your intent than mine. | |||
"What narrative is that? You said you seen the piece about the change of stance in The Guardian, thats a lie. Mrs x" Like I said, I inferred from one of your earlier comments that it was in The Guardian piece and took that in good faith. I explained how that misunderstanding could’ve happened. That doesn’t change the fact that when I checked the BMA site at the time, I didn’t find the update. That’s not lying — it’s just the reality of how information unfolds. | |||
"What narrative is that? You said you seen the piece about the change of stance in The Guardian, thats a lie. Mrs x Like I said, I inferred from one of your earlier comments that it was in The Guardian piece and took that in good faith. I explained how that misunderstanding could’ve happened. That doesn’t change the fact that when I checked the BMA site at the time, I didn’t find the update. That’s not lying — it’s just the reality of how information unfolds." No its not. If you say anything thats not true it's a lie, it a binary choice. Tell the truth or lie, its very simple. It was your citation, to support your argument, you should know whats in it. That is if it was your citation. The formatting of your OP indicates it was AI, the dashes gives it away. Mrs x | |||
"No its not. If you say anything thats not true it's a lie, it a binary choice. Tell the truth or lie, its very simple. It was your citation, to support your argument, you should know whats in it. That is if it was your citation. The formatting of your OP indicates it was AI, the dashes gives it away. Mrs x" The fact that you think truth and lies are always binary tells me a lot. When someone repeats something they genuinely believe to be true, that isn’t lying — it’s a mistake. Intent matters. And sure, I use AI to help format my posts — I’ve been completely transparent about that, and even outlined my process in another thread. That doesn’t mean I didn’t write the content myself. Formatting assistance isn’t authorship. | |||
"No its not. If you say anything thats not true it's a lie, it a binary choice. Tell the truth or lie, its very simple. It was your citation, to support your argument, you should know whats in it. That is if it was your citation. The formatting of your OP indicates it was AI, the dashes gives it away. Mrs x The fact that you think truth and lies are always binary tells me a lot. When someone repeats something they genuinely believe to be true, that isn’t lying — it’s a mistake. Intent matters. And sure, I use AI to help format my posts — I’ve been completely transparent about that, and even outlined my process in another thread. That doesn’t mean I didn’t write the content myself. Formatting assistance isn’t authorship." Repeated lying isn't a mistake, its just done by a compulsive liar. A bit like when you claim AI was just used for editing purposes. The dashes are used by AI to indicate where a pause should take place. It's to do with UTF-8, when AI is asked a question. So go on make a mistake again, oh sorry I mean carry on with your compulsory lying haha, its too easy, Mrs x | |||
"Repeated lying isn't a mistake, its just done by a compulsive liar. A bit like when you claim AI was just used for editing purposes. The dashes are used by AI to indicate where a pause should take place. It's to do with UTF-8, when AI is asked a question. So go on make a mistake again, oh sorry I mean carry on with your compulsory lying haha, its too easy, Mrs x" That’s ad hominem and personal incredulity — neither is an argument. I’ve already explained my process in full transparency; anyone can read it. Formatting isn’t evidence of deceit — it’s just punctuation. It’s obvious you’re not willing to add anything constructive to the discussion. Until you do, this will be my last reply to you here. | |||
"Repeated lying isn't a mistake, its just done by a compulsive liar. A bit like when you claim AI was just used for editing purposes. The dashes are used by AI to indicate where a pause should take place. It's to do with UTF-8, when AI is asked a question. So go on make a mistake again, oh sorry I mean carry on with your compulsory lying haha, its too easy, Mrs x That’s ad hominem and personal incredulity — neither is an argument. I’ve already explained my process in full transparency; anyone can read it. Formatting isn’t evidence of deceit — it’s just punctuation. It’s obvious you’re not willing to add anything constructive to the discussion. Until you do, this will be my last reply to you here." Calling someone a compulsive liar is not ad hominem, its not a personal attack, its just an observation where someone repeats things that arent true. You are lying again about the AI too. The dashes arent put in by the AI as part of editing, they are put in by AI to indicate where you'd normally pause when speaking, where the AI wants to clearly separate a thought or clause, or where they want to show a range. AI does this to make text read more naturally, closer to how someone would explain it aloud. But its AI that does this of its own accord when answering a question set to it. So go on tell me that you didnt het that huge OP without asking AI for it, haha, Mrs x | |||
"Calling someone a compulsive liar is not ad hominem, its not a personal attack, its just an observation where someone repeats things that arent true. You are lying again about the AI too. The dashes arent put in by the AI as part of editing, they are put in by AI to indicate where you'd normally pause when speaking, where the AI wants to clearly separate a thought or clause, or where they want to show a range. AI does this to make text read more naturally, closer to how someone would explain it aloud. But its AI that does this of its own accord when answering a question set to it. So go on tell me that you didnt het that huge OP without asking AI for it, haha, Mrs x" Literally the fourth post I made in the AI thread lays out, step by step, how I built the opening post — including where I used AI and where I didn’t. You don’t have to believe it, but the record’s there. | |||
"So go on tell me that you didnt het that huge OP without asking AI for it" "Literally the fourth post I made in the AI thread lays out, step by step, how I built the opening post — including where I used AI and where I didn’t." You did. You said that you "asked the AI to find and cite every accredited organisation or expert who had publicly commented on the Cass Review, including whether they endorsed the goal, the findings, and if they’d implemented anything from it". So you just got the AI to write that entire first post for you. Yes, you removed the keys credible bits and added an introductory paragraph, but the meat of that post was entirely AI generated. | |||
| |||
"Yeah, I suppose if you selectively process what I said, you could describe it like that. What I actually did was ask AI to gather the statements and citations — the legwork, not the argument. The structure, commentary, and conclusions were mine. If research assistance equals authorship, then every journalist using Google has a ghostwriter. " Understood. You told AI what argument you wanted to make, then asked it to find supporting evidence. You then reviewed it to determine that it indeed matched what you intended. | |||
"Understood. You told AI what argument you wanted to make, then asked it to find supporting evidence. You then reviewed it to determine that it indeed matched what you intended." That is a deliberate misread of what I wrote. I did not ask AI to find evidence for a conclusion. I asked it to pull what each accredited body actually said, on three neutral axes: did they endorse the goal, did they endorse the findings, did they implement anything. It returned a mixed list. Some welcomed the goal. Some criticised methods. None of that was pre-baked to my view. I then removed ideological groups on both sides, verified each citation, and updated where the record changed. That is not telling AI the answer. It is asking it to fetch the record so I can check it. If you think I missed a body or misread a statement, name it and we can add or correct it. | |||
| |||
"Understood. You told AI what argument you wanted to make, then asked it to find supporting evidence. You then reviewed it to determine that it indeed matched what you intended. That is a deliberate misread of what I wrote. I did not ask AI to find evidence for a conclusion. I asked it to pull what each accredited body actually said, on three neutral axes: did they endorse the goal, did they endorse the findings, did they implement anything. It returned a mixed list. Some welcomed the goal. Some criticised methods. None of that was pre-baked to my view. I then removed ideological groups on both sides, verified each citation, and updated where the record changed. That is not telling AI the answer. It is asking it to fetch the record so I can check it. If you think I missed a body or misread a statement, name it and we can add or correct it." You asked for citations, that is the evidence for your argument, thats what citations do. So its not your argument, or your evidence but you say you reviewed it. But you didnt even do a good job on that. Your AI cited an article that was out of date and didnt evidence the current stance of the BMA. Yet you say you read this and you still used it. Thats shite, for want of a better term. Your AI fucked up, you checked but didnt notice but you still used it. What's worse is you subsequently lied by saying the article cited from The Guardian mention the change of stance. But thats impossible because it was written a couple of weeks before the BMA were pressurised into this change. Soothe question is how many other times have you done this? I dont expect a truthful response. Mrs x | |||
"You asked for citations, that is the evidence for your argument, thats what citations do. So its not your argument, or your evidence but you say you reviewed it. But you didnt even do a good job on that. Your AI cited an article that was out of date and didnt evidence the current stance of the BMA. Yet you say you read this and you still used it. Thats shite, for want of a better term. Your AI fucked up, you checked but didnt notice but you still used it. What's worse is you subsequently lied by saying the article cited from The Guardian mention the change of stance. But thats impossible because it was written a couple of weeks before the BMA were pressurised into this change. Soothe question is how many other times have you done this? I dont expect a truthful response. Mrs x" I’ve already answered all of this — several times, in detail. Repeating the same accusation doesn’t make it true, and it doesn’t change the record. Believe what you like, but at this point you’re arguing with a timeline, not a person. | |||
"You asked for citations, that is the evidence for your argument, thats what citations do. So its not your argument, or your evidence but you say you reviewed it. But you didnt even do a good job on that. Your AI cited an article that was out of date and didnt evidence the current stance of the BMA. Yet you say you read this and you still used it. Thats shite, for want of a better term. Your AI fucked up, you checked but didnt notice but you still used it. What's worse is you subsequently lied by saying the article cited from The Guardian mention the change of stance. But thats impossible because it was written a couple of weeks before the BMA were pressurised into this change. Soothe question is how many other times have you done this? I dont expect a truthful response. Mrs x I’ve already answered all of this — several times, in detail. Repeating the same accusation doesn’t make it true, and it doesn’t change the record. Believe what you like, but at this point you’re arguing with a timeline, not a person." flying about it doesn't make it true. So did you or did you not say you'd read the article from The Guardiam and saw the change of stance in there? Don't forget I can easily cut and paste exactly what you said on the matter, Mrs x | |||
"flying about it doesn't make it true. So did you or did you not say you'd read the article from The Guardiam and saw the change of stance in there? Don't forget I can easily cut and paste exactly what you said on the matter, Mrs x" I’ve already clarified exactly what happened, more than once. You keep trying to rewrite it into something I didn’t say. At this point, you’re not quoting — you’re inventing. | |||
"flying about it doesn't make it true. So did you or did you not say you'd read the article from The Guardiam and saw the change of stance in there? Don't forget I can easily cut and paste exactly what you said on the matter, Mrs x I’ve already clarified exactly what happened, more than once. You keep trying to rewrite it into something I didn’t say. At this point, you’re not quoting — you’re inventing." So you didnt say this then? "You’re right that the Guardian/Observer article I cited earlier also mentioned the change, but I initially discarded that point because I couldn’t verify it on the BMA’s own site." This is impossible on 2 grounds, the article DIDN'T mention the change at all. The reason for this is because the BMA didn't change their stance for about 2 weeks after this article was published. So deny you wrote it, or claim you didn't mean it but anyway you spin, you are just lying. You've been caught out, just do the adult thing and own up to it. You wont though but it doesn't matter, everyone on this thread can read this and make up their own mind. Or get AI to make it up for them, Mrs x | |||
"So you didnt say this then? "You’re right that the Guardian/Observer article I cited earlier also mentioned the change, but I initially discarded that point because I couldn’t verify it on the BMA’s own site." This is impossible on 2 grounds, the article DIDN'T mention the change at all. The reason for this is because the BMA didn't change their stance for about 2 weeks after this article was published. So deny you wrote it, or claim you didn't mean it but anyway you spin, you are just lying. You've been caught out, just do the adult thing and own up to it. You wont though but it doesn't matter, everyone on this thread can read this and make up their own mind. Or get AI to make it up for them, Mrs x" Already answered, already clarified. You keep circling the same misread to keep the fight going — that’s on you. Anyone actually reading the thread can see the timeline and judge for themselves. | |||
"So you didnt say this then? "You’re right that the Guardian/Observer article I cited earlier also mentioned the change, but I initially discarded that point because I couldn’t verify it on the BMA’s own site." This is impossible on 2 grounds, the article DIDN'T mention the change at all. The reason for this is because the BMA didn't change their stance for about 2 weeks after this article was published. So deny you wrote it, or claim you didn't mean it but anyway you spin, you are just lying. You've been caught out, just do the adult thing and own up to it. You wont though but it doesn't matter, everyone on this thread can read this and make up their own mind. Or get AI to make it up for them, Mrs x Already answered, already clarified. You keep circling the same misread to keep the fight going — that’s on you. Anyone actually reading the thread can see the timeline and judge for themselves." Timeliness haha, you lied, its in black and white. If its not then post the thing you said you saw in that article but you can't be its not there, it didnt happen until two weeks after publication. That would be so easy, especially for someone who fact checks as much as you say you do, verifies as much as you claim and has integrity, yeah right. Mrs x | |||
"Timeliness haha, you lied, its in black and white. If its not then post the thing you said you saw in that article but you can't be its not there, it didnt happen until two weeks after publication. That would be so easy, especially for someone who fact checks as much as you say you do, verifies as much as you claim and has integrity, yeah right. Mrs x" I don’t need to keep reposting the same explanation just because you keep ignoring it. Anyone who’s read the thread already knows what happened — you repeating it doesn’t change that. | |||
"Timeliness haha, you lied, its in black and white. If its not then post the thing you said you saw in that article but you can't be its not there, it didnt happen until two weeks after publication. That would be so easy, especially for someone who fact checks as much as you say you do, verifies as much as you claim and has integrity, yeah right. Mrs x I don’t need to keep reposting the same explanation just because you keep ignoring it. Anyone who’s read the thread already knows what happened — you repeating it doesn’t change that." You are lying still, there's no other way to say it. Even when its put in front of your face you say it wasn't... You must adhere to the Shaggy school of debating haha, joke, Mrs x | |||
"You are lying still, there's no other way to say it. Even when its put in front of your face you say it wasn't... You must adhere to the Shaggy school of debating haha, joke, Mrs x" If repeating the same accusation is all you’ve got left, that says it all. I’ve explained it, clarified it, and moved on — you’re just looping now. | |||
"You are lying still, there's no other way to say it. Even when its put in front of your face you say it wasn't... You must adhere to the Shaggy school of debating haha, joke, Mrs x If repeating the same accusation is all you’ve got left, that says it all. I’ve explained it, clarified it, and moved on — you’re just looping now." You really are a special case, Mrs x | |||
| |||
