Mick Hartley

A research study at the University of Leeds, "to establish some agreement amongst clinicians regarding what a gender identity assessment with children, young people and their family should look like in practice".

My name is Joe Coleman (he/him). I am a Trainee Clinical Psychologist at the University of Leeds. This project is being supervised by:

• • Rebecca Yeates (she/her) Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of Leeds

  • Claudia Zitz (they/them) Assistant Professor in Clinical Psychology, University of Birmingham

  • James Lea (he/they) Senior Fellow of Higher Education Academy, University of Manchester

  • Gary Latchford (he/him) Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Leeds 

Lovely. Some more detail.

One of the concerns raised in the Cass Review’s interim report was that gender identity assessments were inconsistent and lacked standardisation. There was a suggestion that the clinician’s own perceptions, experiences and beliefs were impacting upon their approach. Young people and families have also reported some frustration with this inconsistency.

This project therefore aims to address these concerns. It recognises that conducting these assessments is a specialist task, and values the knowledge, experience, and expertise of gender clinicians. Therefore, the project aims to draw upon this expertise to develop a consensus amongst clinicians on the core components and processes of an assessment, with the aim of increasing consistency across assessments and overall, improving the experience of those who are accessing the support.

So, who can take part?

Whilst the research wishes to hear from participants with a wide range of views and beliefs, it is important that participants subscribe to some basic beliefs regarding the validity of gender diversity and an individual’s right to access assessment support regarding their identity. Therefore, participants must also meet the below criteria in regard to their beliefs:

• • Gender diversity is normal, and not inherently pathological, in child development.

  • Children, young people, and families have a right to support when exploring their gender identity and/or any distress that relates to this.

  • One possible outcome of an assessment is that a child or young person continues to identify with a gender identity that differs to their sex assigned at birth.

Individuals who hold different beliefs are not invited to take part in this research because the focus of the research is gaining consensus on the components and processes of a children and young people’s gender assessments.

Individuals who hold different beliefs – for instance that the phrase "a child or young person continues to identify with a gender identity that differs to their sex assigned at birth" makes no sense – are not invited to participate, as they may skew the results in a way contrary to the results aimed for. "The focus of the research is gaining consensus", and he can hardly do that if he includes people who disagree. So, only gender-affirming clinicians need apply.

As I said wrt the suppressed NIH study in the US: this isn't science, it's ideology.

James Esses: "our universities have been taken over by a trans agenda".

Added: the research is described as a Delphi study:

The Delphi method or Delphi technique is a structured communication technique or method, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method that relies on a panel of experts…

Delphi is based on the principle that forecasts (or decisions) from a structured group of individuals are more accurate than those from unstructured groups. The experts answer questionnaires in two or more rounds. After each round, a facilitator or change agent provides an anonymised summary of the experts' forecasts from the previous round as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments. Thus, experts are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the replies of other members of their panel. It is believed that during this process the range of the answers will decrease and the group will converge towards the "correct" answer.

I think we can see the problem – especially if the "experts" are chosen to exclude those with whom the study coordinator disagrees. If, that is, the only experts included in the study are those who believe in the reality of "gender identity", and the prevalence of gender dysphoric teens who've been cruelly let down by Cass.

Special attention has to be paid to the formulation of the Delphi theses and the definition and selection of the experts in order to avoid methodological weaknesses that severely threaten the validity and reliability of the results.

Hmm.