Talk:Cass Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information To-do list: ...
Close

sources for consideration

Some sources

I am new to this article, so please let me know if any of these have already been discussed. If there is a detailed explanation of what the consensus is on what is to be included/excluded from this article somewhere, please let me know.

Some interesting recent papers I found that are preprints yet to be published.

Other sources for consideration:

Katzrockso (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The top two sources are unfortunately not very useful yet because they're preprints. They do mention the Cass Review but they're not literature reviews, they're primary research which briefly mention the Cass Review.
The third source (and to some extent also the fourth source, which is similar) is potentially very useful, as it appears to be a better sourced version of the AusPATH objection from right when the Cass Review was released. We should probably use it to augment or replace that source. Loki (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I meant to say to "watch" for the first two since they're unpublished; wait and watch if they will be published (the original header I had "some sources to watch"). In my experience, most preprints by larger groups like this end up getting published eventually. Didn't mean to suggest they are usable in current form, I apologize if that was the impression. Katzrockso (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar
About the fourth source, I looked into some of the authors and it seems like they are notorious in Australia for opposition to trans medical care & trans people . My impression is that the journal is not highly regarded in Australian psychology either.
I thought it might be useful for the claim "To date, Australian medical authorities have largely ignored the Cass report’s findings and recommendations".
I am not sure what section you think they could be useful in, though. Perhaps that quote could go in the Cass Review#Australia and New Zealand section, but I don't think the other article could be used there since it's supposed to represent the positions of medical organizations of particular countries, not groups of researchers. Katzrockso (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
To note about the 3rd article (Moore et al), is that it's a perspective and not a traditional research article. Also agree about 4 (Clayton et al), looking at the disclosure section gives the game away. LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Loki, because a 'perspective' (opinion piece) in a medical journal is still better than a press release issued the day after the report. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2025

Current information on the New Zealand position appears to be overtly political. Furthermore, it incorrectly refers to the “New Zealand First and ACT party coalition”. The government is in fact a coalition of the National party, New Zealand First and the ACT party. The health minister is a National MP in the coalition. I suggest the following two changes.


Replace: “the New Zealand Ministry of Health under the right-wing New Zealand First and ACT party coalition released an evidence brief informed by the Cass Review” with “the New Zealand Ministry of Health released an evidence brief informed by the Cass Review”

Replace: “On November 19, 2025, the Ministry of Health under the New Zealand First and ACT party coalition and led by Simeon Brown, announced a ban on puberty blockers for minors with gender dysphoria set to take effect on December 19, 2025.” with: “On November 19, 2025, the Minister of Health Simeon Brown announced a ban on puberty blockers for minors with gender dysphoria set to take effect on December 19, 2025. ” ~2025-32300-12 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done The political background of a governmental decision as highlighted by our sources is relevant when it's a healthcare decision in direct conflict with New Zealand's medical community, as well as in the wider context of the Cass Review as a political document as highlighted elsewhere. Snokalok (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
I was about to respond as well. Sources like highlight that the politicization of gender healthcare is relevant to this decision. Katzrockso (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Another academic source

Here is a new critique from Moser. Unsure if it is worth citing in the academic response section, but another editor might be interested. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If you're the sort of person who knows the names "J Michael Bailey" or "Rittakertu Kaltiala", a critique of the Cass Review from Moser is probably a fascinating read. If you're Johnny English looking at the Cass Review Wikipedia article just to get caught up on current events, it's probably noise. Snokalok (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
We can probably include it on the Charles Allen Moser page Snokalok (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
If you know who Bailey is, you already klnw that Cass is bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Charles Moser has been fighting the good fight against the nonsense sexology that has pervaded the scientific literature for decades. But I agree we already have a bloat problem with individual researcher critiques in this article, it would have to be extensive or otherwise notable to warrant inclusion here.
However, I'm not sure if I have mentioned it before, but we seriously need to restructure this article to focus on the specific arguments within the cited sources rather than a listicle of what different people have said. So if there is a novel/less common argument Moser makes in the article that could help expand the article, it could be useful in that regard. Katzrockso (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Moore JK, Rayner C, Skinner SR, Wynne K, Cavve BS, Fraser B, Ganti U, McAllister C, Meyerowitz-Katz G, Nguyen T, Ravine A, Ross B, Russell DB, Saunders LA, Siafarikas A, Pang KC. Cass Review does not guide care for trans young people. Med J Aust. 2025 Oct 6;223(7):331-337. doi: 10.5694/mja2.70035. PMID: 41055349; PMCID: PMC12502890.

Please include this peer-reviewed publication, which is currently to be found at the top of the "Most Popular" section of the homepage of the Medical Journal of Australia, Australia's highest-impact medical journal. https://www.mja.com.au/

This publication is important because:

1. It has 16 authors and 16 acknowledged other contributors, who are experts in transgender health who live and work in all States and Territories of Australia. As well as presenting a soundly-referenced critique of the Cass Review, it also presents key modern concepts of gender diversity and transgender health as Box 1, and it presents a concise description of the current evidence-informed and expert-consensus standard of care for trans and gender diverse young people in Australia.

2. It presents an easy-to-read critique of the Cass Review which considers sociopolitical context as as well as academic errors.

3. It describes the negative consequences of the Cass Review to date in the UK and elsewhere.

4. It is balanced, acknowledging that the Cass Review makes some valid recommendations, while providing a critique of the harmful recommendations.

5. It is highly topical in the Australiasian region - at present, December 2025, gender-affirming puberty suppression for trans and gender diverse minors is banned in Queensland and the Northern Territory (Australia) and a sudden November 2026 ban in Aotearoa New Zealand is currently stayed by a High Court ruling pending judicial review. These bans cited the Cass Review to support their restrictions, without recognising the flaws of the Cass Review.

Two representative quotes from Moore et al (2025) are:

"The Cass Review's internal contradictions are striking. It acknowledged that some trans young people benefit from puberty suppression, but its recommendations have made this currently inaccessible to all. It found no evidence that psychological treatments improve gender dysphoria, yet recommended expanding their provision. It found that NHS provision of GAMT (GnRHa, oestrogen or testosterone) was already very restricted, and that young people were distressed by lack of access to treatment,1 yet it recommended increased barriers to oestrogen and testosterone for any trans adolescents aged under 18 years. It dismissed the evidence of benefit from GAMT as “weak”, but emphasised speculative harms based on weaker evidence. The harms of withholding GAMT were not evaluated. The Review disregarded studies observing that adolescents who requested but were unable to access GAMT had poorer mental health compared with those who could access GAMT.17-21 Despite finding that detransition and regret appear uncommon,1 the Review's recommendations appear to have the goal of preventing regret at any cost."

"Evidence-based medicine has three pillars: (i) appraisal of research evidence, (ii) real-world clinical expertise, and (iii) individual patient values and preferences.99 The Review's failures across all three are evident.

Clinician and researcher self-awareness of personal values is essential for evidence-based medicine practice. Non-financial conflicts of interest should be disclosed; for example, religious, cultural, and so-called “gender-critical” beliefs.100 The Review acknowledges no such considerations, and does not disclose the positionality of authors."

~2025-43221-81 (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):
WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
As I stated on Talk:Conversion therapy, "The McFayden et al. article could be a MEDRS for very certain claims (largely the ones in the Conclusion section), but those claims have better sources anyways and the information about McFayden isn't DUE here."Katzrockso (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC) I thought this was the same article as the other talk page, but I was mistaken.Katzrockso (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
why isn't the article secondary? i see no direct research done, the analysis is mostly synthesis of previous research that makes it sound secondary. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Moore et al (2025) was externally peer reviewed. Cut and pasted from the Provenance section at the bottom of the article:
"Provenance
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed."
Thanks ~2025-43221-81 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I missed that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Needs updating

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI