Canadian Politics Today

I'm not sure what sucks more: the deliberate misrepresentation of the claim (which was that Rowling stated trans women are more likely to be sexual predators, not that she said all of them were) or the strawman "gender activist people" you say make that claim.

Here's what Rowling said about trans women:"Only 2% of sexual offenders are female. 88% of sexual assault victims are female. Trans women retain male strength advantage and male patterns of violence and sexual offending."

What you said she said: "trans women are more likely to be sexual predators"

What she actually said:
Only 2% of sexual offenders are female. 88% of sexual assault victims are female. Trans women retain male strength advantage and male patterns of violence and sexual offending. We know TW aren't all predators. However, the evidence shows that some are.

I notice that you forgot to include the part I bolded.

You claimed she said "trans women are more likely to be sexual predators". When someone uses the word "more" without stating more than what, it always looks suspicious. In this case, Rowling didn't directly make a claim of "more likely to be sexual predators" in her tweet.  Compared to cisgender women, then obviously yes, trans women are more likely to be sexual predators.

And she linked to research that supports that claim: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

This is again an example of a completely reasonable statement that most people would agree with, which trans activists have attempted to misrepresent.

Nothing says "I just want to talk about these isssueeees" like comparing gender-affirming approach to the horrific and homophobic practice of forced conversion therapy. Really sends the signal that you're open to discussion about the facts.

If you want to talk about the issue, consider just talking about the issues without invoking the "queers are brainwashing our kids" panic.

Trans activists are very happy throwing around comparisons of conversion therapy when it suits their purposes. In particular they like to claim that exploratory (as opposed to affirmative) therapy is conversion therapy.  They claim that trying to help kids with gender dysphoria live comfortably in the bodies they have is literally conversion therapy.

But yes. Many kids receiving "gender affirming care" would grow up to become cisgender gay people given the chance.

The one that completely destroyed the idea that children are being rushed into medical transitions and doesn't actually contain any statistical evidence that puberty blockers or surgery are being thrust upon children and adolescents?

It did no such thing. The UK clinical psychologists association response to the report:

The publication of the interim findings of The Cass Review in February 2022 found the following:

•     GIDS took an approach that was predominantly affirmative, rather than exploratory
•     Assessment was not standardised
•     Mental health and neurodevelopmental assessments were not conducted comprehensively, leading to ‘diagnostic overshadowing’ whereby gender dysphoria was attended to without taking into account any co-existing diagnoses
•     Safeguarding processes were lacking

The scale of the demand for services
 

•   There is evidence that a significant proportion of young people with gender dysphoria have comorbid neurodevelopmental conditions[1] and/or mental health difficulties[2]. They are also more likely to have experienced trauma[3] and other psychosocial difficulties than age-matched peers[4]. The new, regional services will need to offer robust, holistic and systemic multidisciplinary assessments in order to ascertain exactly what support and treatment each child and adolescent will need.
•    As of May 2021, there were over 4000 young people on the GIDS waiting list[5], many of whom had waited up to three years for an assessment[6]. The closure of the service will substantially increase their anxiety and distress. Those young people – and their families – will need significant psychosocial support as the new services and pathways are developed.

Psychological and social factors
   

•    Until 2011, the majority of young people referred to GIDS were male. Recent years have seen a sharp increase in the number of females presenting with gender dysphoria, with the most recent data indicating a ratio of approximately 3:1[7]. Psychologists will need to consider a complex array of social, political and cultural factors, as well as individual factors, when developing clinical formulations of distress with young people and their families.
•    As psychologists, we are aware that many young people who experience same-sex attraction will, at some stage, question their gender identity or experience gender dysphoria[8]. They are also likely to behave in gender-nonconforming ways[9].
•    Homophobia persists to some extent both within health and social care settings[10], and in wider civil society[11]. We need to better understand the possible relationships between the experience of homophobia and gender identity exploration and/or dysphoria in some young people[12].
•    It is now clear that a proportion of young people who transition will detransition or have regrets later in life, possibly already having undergone irreversible pharmacological or surgical intervention[13],[14],[15].
•    The health and social needs of this group are also likely to require input from a broad range of specialist services as they navigate the detransition process[16].
  

https://acpuk.org.uk/the-cass-review-and-its-implications-psychologically-informed-considerations-for-the-future/

I think one would be forgiven in thinking the "we're just asking questions over here" rhetoric is pure bad faith when the actual policies being pursued and implemented by your allies consist of banning gender affirming care of any kind.

I think you've confused JK Rowling with Ron de Santis.

Yes, Republicans have politicized this issue. But so have people like Oliver and Stewart in portraying this as Republicans vs the entire medical establishment. The truth of the matter is that the entire medical establishment is certainly not in consensus about how best to treat kids with gender dysphoria.  Despite what Stewart and Oliver told you on their shows, this issue is very much unsettled. Two weeks ago the New York Times published a major investigative piece on puberty blockers and Reuters published a major piece regarding the influence of social media on the explosion in numbers of teen girls seeking gender transition. Last week The Guardian also published a piece on the explosion in numbers of teen girls seeking gender transition.  These articles would have been unthinkable a couple of years ago, especially from NYT and The Graun. And these articles are being published now because the questions around this are becoming too big to be ignored.  All of these articles make the point that there is a lot of confusion within the medical community about what is going on.

In Finland, after initially going all in on affirmative care, put the brakes on it a couple of years ago. That decision was made by medical experts, not by politicians, as the Reuters article explains.  In wake of the Cass Report, the UK is also putting the brakes on affirmative care.

Questions *are* being asked and shouting "transphobe!" at everybody who dares to ask them isn't stopping it anymore.

Lol. This is exactly what i'm talking about in the point above. You claim to be interested in more research and more information blah blah blah, but the allies you're making who have actual power don't give a damn about that stuff. Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

I think  you've confused JK Rowling with Matt Walsh.

She's coasting on name recognition.

Whatever.  People can't stop writing articles about her, meanwhile Potter and Granger only get ink when they attack her.

 -k