Reponse from the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender to the Freddy McConnell guardian article:
https://x.com/CanSG_org/status/1778709974144757839
CAN-SG is not a ‘gender-critical pressure group’. We are a network of clinicians & medical whistleblowers doing ‘medicine as usual’. CAN-SG membership is only available to clinicians & healthcare workers.
We strongly object to these misrepresentations of our organisation and are seeking a correction. At CAN-SG, we are creating space within our professions for urgently needed, fact-based, respectful and compassionate analysis of gender medicine. Our concerns, although vindicated by the Cass Review, still remain a live issue for patients placed on care pathways, that are compounding harm.
We are exercising our medical, ethical and legal duty to develop safe practices. We are doing so in an increasingly unsafe atmosphere which is created and perpetuated by untrue assertions such as the ones promoted in this ‘opinion piece’.
On the 23rd of March we held the first UK conference of its kind #FirstDoNoHarm. Sold out, it was attended by clinicians from around the world. The presentations were compassionate, informed and invaluable.
On the morning of the conference our venue was attacked by masked men, using smoke bombs, trying to force entry into the building. Although they failed to enter the building, staff were frightened, traumatised and sustained injuries. For a period they successfully blocked entrance to the building. Arrests were made.
It was concerning and alarming to experience this violence, whilst trying to consolidate the vast gap between the assertions of the protestors and the reality of our organisation and conference.
It is not acceptable to target, threaten or harass doctors, nurses, therapists and so forth. A trend resulting in medical professionals performing abortions in the US, or vaccines in the UK, being increasingly targeted. This prevailing atmosphere hurts patients, undermines their right to evidence-based care, and inhibits our ability to centre patient wellbeing in our work.
As The Guardian comments page itself says, ‘comment is free but facts are sacred.’ We ask The Guardian to exercise sound ethical standards, and not allow their platform to be used to attack professionals trying to address an unfolding medical scandal. The comments section of a newspaper should not be used as a vehicle for promoting fake news & libellous comments.
We look forward to a prompt correction.
Of course that's the only part of the article you've bothered to comment on, and of course you take what the CAN-SG say at face value.
As to the protest (because it was
in bold): this was a primarily peaceful if loud demonstration of the "nothing about us without us" kind. Yes, it seems some people got rowdy, blocked the doors and let off smoke flares, of the type you see at European football matches. The police did make a few arrests. But "masked men" and "smoke bombs" makes it sound like paramilitaries trying to storm the building.
As for their complaint: to be strictly accurate, no, they're not a specifically gender-critical pressure group, they're a medical group, but they certainly have connections with GCs.
As to what they're about: in their own words it's "exploring all developmentally appropriate options for children and young people who are experiencing gender incongruence, being mindful that this may be a transient phase, particularly for pre-pubertal children, and that there will be a range of pathways to support these children and young people and a range of outcomes."
Nothing wrong with that as such. Indeed, it could be a summary of gender affirmative therapy: that the child (or whoever) be supported to explore their gender issues without any preconceptions as to what these might mean or what the right course of action might be.
The difference is that gender affirmation takes the child (or whoever) seriously. Whereas the CAN-SG's primary impetus is to convince them they're wrong. Which is why the CECHR noted that such therapies as they promote "fundamentally have the same objectives as conversion practices”.
Their notion of "compassionate" btw is to say "we care" at regular intervals and everyone nods along. It's a form of plausible deniability. Well, I'm sure they
do care, but only in a patrician, doctor knows best, kind of way.
But leaving all that aside, the real problem is the same as throughout the entire NHS: it needs more staff. Austerity and Brexit have gutted it. For gender services, this means that people wait years just to get through the door. (Puberty blockers are actually a minor issue for the simple reason that hardly anyone was ever given them anyway.) And that's only got worse since Cass started her review. In this context, the seemingly benign FirstDoNoHarm equates to doing nothing at all.
