There's a parliamentary petition for an independent review of the Cass report into gender medical services for young people. It's a highly problematic document commissioned by the previous government and shaped by anti-trans viewpoints.

If you're a Brit, you can sign it, whether you live in the UK or not. Please do.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700217

Petition: An independent evaluation of the Cass review on child gender services

We believe that trans healthcare should be based on unbiased research that is peer reviewed. We think that the Cass review's findings have led to restrictive practices that are being directly felt by transgender children.

Petitions - UK Government and Parliament

@JennyList
It and its contents are published.
Anyone who wishes can review it independently or en masse.
I've not seen anyone do that.
Not even for a section of it.
Review is encouraged, desirable.

What's the first error?

@midgephoto @JennyList For starters, Cass ignored about a hundred papers, claiming they lack rigour, while at the same time opining that autism and porn is what makes people trans. Secondly, academic institutions such as Yale have produced evidence-based critiques of the Cass Review, tearing the review apart as fundamentally bad science. Thirdly, countries such as Australia, France, and Japan have had their own reviews into gender care and come up with the opposite recommendations to Cass.
@midgephoto @JennyList Fourthly, the Cass Review has been taken as gospel in the UK, and as cover to implement some of the most regressive policies in western Europe, even when the Cass Review itself states such such policies would be going too far. The UK seems happy to take the Cass Review at face value, while ignoring all the red flags. It's the MMR vaccine scandal of our generation, and like Wakefield, Cass's bad science will have ramifications for years to come.
@midgephoto @JennyList As an aside, the BMA is doing exactly what you suggest, and is trying to conduct an independent review into it, yet people are criticising the decision saying it's not their place as a doctors' union. If they were confident in its conclusions, why would they suggest that?