Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms

Are you trying to make a point here sorry? She is literally a pediatric doctor, its more than slightly likely she knows both what puberty blockers etc. do in general and how they impact children.
Leaving aside the fact that unless she was the sole source, and writer, for this report her specific expertise is relatively irrelevant you seem to be missing the fact that you generally like to have neutral (unbiassed) people conducting said reviews.
Equally, remind me how her not being involved in "gender affirming healthcare" means she doesn't know what puberty blockers do? That being precisely what you just inferred.
As a slight aside, do you actually think someone with a direct interest in the topic is the best person to be doing a review of.. their own work? Rather akin to asking a politician to lead the review into their own pay.

I suggest you go back and read that again dear. I said she has expertise in childrens medicine and would know about the medicine there. I then said she does not specifically work in 'gender affirming care' ergo does not have that bias. Also, do you not understand how reviews work? More than one persons work goes into these genius, or do you think this is all just her random opinion pulled out of her ass?
Was that really so difficult for you to understand?
That being said, given your prior comments i'm assuming you're simply trying to rubbish her credentials because her view is one you disagree with?

I mean, I can just say the same thing back in reverse - given your prior comments I'm assuming you're simply trying to bolster and defend her credentials because her view is one you agree with?
SLF gave more detailed specific reasons as to why they think Cass is untrustworthy, and you dismissed them out of hand.

Have you read her CV? She has written numerous published papers in on her area of specialist interest and arguable is a world class expert there and at the very least a national expert in the UK who leads in this area so she is well versed in doing research and is able to critically appraise published research. Her area of interests means she comes into contact daily with children with complex needs both physical and emotional which should provide her with a good basis for trying to understand the equally complex children/teens seeking gender affirming care.
Having no experience in gender affirming care means she brings minimal bias to her review which to me is a good thing. That's not to say they don't have access to colleagues working in gender affirming care
https://cass.independent-review.uk/about-the-review/approach/
Part of the review process involved "extensive and purposeful stakeholder engagement, including ensuring that children and young people can express their own views through a supportive process". I have no doubt the the review board would have done this and gained an understanding of the points of view of the stakeholders and the children/teenagers who are seeing gender-affirming care.
What your reply shows is that you want a yes man to rubberstamp your own views and biases. I'm sorry you didn't get what you wanted but really your posts either show a level of ignorance of the whole process or that you will not accept any outcome other than what you want (what is the point of a review then?).

She didn't bring minimal bias though? Hence why she worked with Patrick Hunter (DeSantis' man) to gut trans healthcare in Florida two years ago:
https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1781017566581870606
And why her review board included Langton who has links to genspect, an anti trans body who promote conversion therapy and Kaltiala, a well known anti trans activist whose practice sexually harasses trans children: https://kehraaja.com/kuvaile-minulle-miten-masturboit-julkikuvan-takaa-paljastuu-transpolien-nuorten-synkka-tilanne/
And she bought that bias to the report, applying impossible evidence criteria that are not appropriate for this healthcare (you can't blind studies on puberty) in order to discount the evidence base because it didn't suit her agenda.
It was not an honestly performed review of the evidence, hence the vast criticism from academics and bafflement from international parties like Patha as to why Cass couldn't find the evidence base that the rest of the world has: https://patha.nz/News/13341582

As I said I don't have any intention to read this and examine the evidence myself.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/about-the-review/assurance-group/
The assurance group board is here. I can't see Langton on it. As part of her remit she would have to canvass all stakeholders not just the ones you think are appropriate. If you wish to label a stakeholder she talked to as anti-trans then that's your POV? Nor does the link to Patrick Hunter show she worked with him? Again she has a duty if the review is to be unbiased to speak to all stakeholders. It all sounds like you just want her to canvas your list of "correct" stakeholders.
I am sure she understands better than most why you can't do blind studies in puberty. Anyone who has done any kind of medical research will understand that.
As to academic criticism, I read that as academics protecting their own bias. Put 20 experts in a room and you will get 20 different nuanced answers as to what the right thing to do is. I think she was always going to be damned whatever the review found by one side or the other. At the end of the day, this is a report produced after a review of the current evidence that tries to be as unbiased as possible. All such reviews will always be open to criticism especially given that published research is not blinded and therefore is potentially inherently biased by the research author's own stance on treatments offered.

Langton was in charge of method design for the York University study that the Cass report hangs it's hat on.
The Cass review literally downgrades a lot of evidence due to a lack of blinding so if she understands you can't do blinded studies on puberty that doesn't seem to be an issue to her in terms of getting the results she wanted. The design of the review makes it very clear it started with a conclusion and worked it's way back, it's poor academics and that's why academics are slamming it.
The only stakeholders in trans healthcare are trans people themselves, speaking to men appointed with the sole purpose of undermining bodily autonomy as a whole is not consulting with stakeholders (and let's be clear, this is about all bodily autonomy, there's a reason why Kiera Bells lawyer in her case v tavistock has also been involved in cases attacking gillick competence, next on the chopping block after trans healthcare is birth control and the recriminalisation of abortion)

Well it's obvious you are entrenched in your views. The only stakeholders in trans healthcare are the trans themselves? So children should be allowed to decide what they want for themselves? I'm sorry I can't agree with that as a parent who has seen my kids make numerous questionable decisions.
I don't think there's any meaningful discussion to be had here so feel free to ignore my posts.

We don't let children smoke, drink, get tattoos, have sex, join the army or drive among countless other things they can't do for the sake of the fact they are incapable of understanding or their bodies can't handle it. Not sure why this is a big fuss.

Technically we do let children drive if we want to be pedantic as you can drive when you’re 17, same with joining the army, I think that you can join at 16 years old unless I’m mistaken here and things like the age of consent is 16.

Technically we do let children drive if we want to be pedantic as you can drive when you’re 17, same with joining the army, I think that you can join at 16 years old unless I’m mistaken here and things like the age of consent is 16.

Yes but my point it we put ages in these things for specific reasons. We don't let 7 year old get tattoos yet some people are willing to let their or others children get pressured into life altering medicine.

True, but the point is that children as young as nine, and many teenagers well before sixteen or eighteen, have been harmed by irresponsible medical practices at the Tavistock and by financially-motivated private doctors with dubious ethics. The explosion in patient numbers, and the sudden shift from a predominance of male patients to a predominance of female patients appear to have a lot to do with social contagion. The theorists, activists, and influencers who push gender affirmation at minors who are experiencing the challenges of adolescence bear much blame, along with the doctors, teachers, social workers, and some parents who have allowed or encouraged this harm to occur.

Yes but my point it we put ages in these things for specific reasons. We don't let 7 year old get tattoos yet some people are willing to let their or others children get pressured into life altering medicine.

Adult activists who join in the encouragement of other people's children to transition are recruiters for a cause. It's a horrible cause - propagating ideas which run counter to every value of enlightenment and progress. Activists tell confused minors that they are in effect prisoners of antediluvian cultural stereotypes of appearance and behaviour, which require them to harm themselves physically in order to conform to bizarre notions of gendered personality which were invented by charlatan academics from the 1970s onwards.
Girl who likes climbing trees and playing with toy guns? You're a boy! Boy who likes baking cakes and wearing pink? You're a girl! Now you must take irreversible medications which expert doctors consider unsafe, and which have demonstrable negative side effects. Once in adulthood you may be persuaded to have yourself mutilated by a butcher posing as a surgeon, destroying healthy tissue and removing sexual function and fertility. You can become a life long customer of the quack doctors and the drug companies they shill for.
The real wonder here is that the NHS ever had anything to do with this barbaric claptrap.