BBC interview with Cass. 'Both sides weaponised'

What they forget with their irresponsible lying about this, is that in the UK all child deaths are investigated.
In the UK we have Child Death Overview Panels that oversee the circumstances of all child deaths 61% of these are infants under the age of 1. The Child Death Mortality Database summarises the findings of these.

The death of any child is a tragedy for all concerned and it's so disappointing to see people who I suspect we'd see as generally good people, weaponising alleged child suicides to serve their own narrow political agenda.

Have we ever heard from a sociologist or similar on their views of gender dysphoria given that gender is a social construct?

I know a trans man who is one of the small percentage to have had all of the operations. They are physically unwell as a result and I don't believe their mental state has been improved by the operations. I find it heartbreaking and mind-blowing.

This is exactly the issue.
Hannah Barnes would have been excellent.

They are absolutely batshit. And "Lyra Dick" - how appropriate. Why oh why can't more people see what the motivations of these men are?

I probably shouldn't be shocked by any of this anymore, but I just couldn't believe how irresponsible they are. The Greens really are a lost cause.

I know Dr. Cass has gotten criticism for "both sides-ing" it, but it seems that her interview has really rattled the TRAs, so they are being even more unhinged than usual. She laid out some pretty stark truths about the fact that most young people will grow out it, and it is worrying them that this message seems to be cutting through.

I’ve just had a look at their page and it gets even worse. I’ll be keeping these screenshots on my phone and woe betide any Green campaigners who dare to talk to me.

Second pic is a comment on the post that was made yesterday (first pic):

Yes - they are suggesting that. They're completely irrational and irresponsible - repeatedly breaching the media guidelines on responsible reporting of suicide. Incandescent that their hold on education and vulnerable children in schools is being loosened .
These people genuinely are weaponising children in their determination to remove safeguarding boundaries & for men to access girls and women undressing.

Hopefully they'll get some challenges on the doorstep although as we're seeing, there are numerous dangerous people involved in propping up this ideology so people may be reluctant to say anything to them for fear of retribution.

This is on North Dorset Green Party's facebook page. It's outrageous. Are they really suggesting that the government has been covering up suicides?

This article
Evolving national guidelines for the treatment of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: International Perspectives
from Dr Rittakerttu Kaltiala’s website discusses puberty blockers and possibly may go into existing research about them. It says you can download this article. Perhaps someone here with analytical scientific expertise might like to read it.

This is the abstract. (My paragraphs to make it easier to see.):

From the early years of this century, many Western countries adopted the “Dutch Protocol” as a new medical pathway for treating children and adolescents with childhood-onset gender dysphoria. On this approach, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) were used to suppress puberty, followed by cross-sex hormones (testosterone or oestrogen).

This perspective article traces—in each of the countries where we, the authors, live and work—how the Dutch Protocol came to be incorporated into clinical practice or formally adopted into national guidelines.

Over time, guidelines across different countries were progressively shaped by a rights-based approach that removed previous safeguards and increased availability of gender-reassignment medical interventions for children and adolescents.

From 2010 onward, two developments raised new concerns, generating alternate perspectives and wide-ranging differences in clinical approach.

Numerous countries reported an unexpected increase in adolescent-onset presentations, especially among girls.

During the same period, an increasing number of individuals who had undergone gender-reassignment medical interventions as minors reported harm and regret.

Worldwide, questions were raised about the safety of clinical guidelines for children and adolescents presenting with gender dysphoria. Government bodies in Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. state of Florida commissioned systematic reviews pertaining to hormone treatments and issued formal reports.

In a parallel process, “conversion therapy” laws, passed in many countries, closed access to exploratory psychotherapy that enables exploration of gender-identity issues from a neutral therapeutic stance.

Taken together, these three developments introduced evidence-based and legal considerations into the debate, resulting in tensions that remain unresolved.

Evolving national guidelines for the treatment of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: International perspectives
November 2024

www.researchgate.net/publication/385498967_Evolving_national_guidelines_for_the_treatment_of_children_and_adolescents_with_gender_dysphoria_International_perspectives

Dr Riittakerttu-Kaltiala of Finland is an expert. But she is famous and you’d think Dr Cass and Wes Streeting might already have been in touch.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Riittakerttu-Kaltiala

@spannasaurus
I hadn’t read your answer.

Finland probably has quite a bit.

I found the following about Finland which refers to a study that compares the difference between children treated with blockers vs children wait listed for treatment. Not much detail but seems similar to the proposed UK trial comparing those treated immediately with those who have to wait 12 months before treatment

"The guidelines also mentioned that a key study on puberty blockers, which utilized a comparison group of waitlisted adolescents, failed to show a statistically significant difference between the treated and waitlisted groups at the study end-period at 18 months. Although in the abstract of that study, the authors chose to highlight the small improvements in the puberty-blocked group at 12 months, the actual study conclusion – which remains behind a paywall and hidden to most readers – showed that by 18 months, no significant differences could be found."

I've been wondering something. I know the Tavistock didn't keep data to track long-term outcomes of those who had been through the clinic. But what about other countries' gender clinics? Is there no data at all, anywhere in the world, for those who have been prescribed puberty blockers for this purpose?

I could understand the 'both sides' if they'd for example asked one of the Tavistock whistleblowers on; or Hannah Barnes who had done some actual research but they got Billy Bragg?

And so many ‘professionals’ from NHS doctors and midwives to social workers, teachers and counsellors are in thrall to the cult.

That is what she said - the extremes are vocal, but the majority in the middle are being quiet and letting the professionals get on with it.

But given we've seen lots of medical malpractices, we should be able to question the rationale without being labelled.

You are wrong. There are pages and pages about murdered children in Gaza on the CITME threads. Interestingly someone will invariably arrive and say if you really cared you would not be talking about Gaza, you’d be talking about Yemen or Syria etc.

Basically you are just trying to shut people down.

You can’t have read much on this board because there are thousands upon thousands of pages relating to the harm to children caused by this gender cult. It is the major reason for being against it. This is mumsnet.

The other perfectly valid reasons are secondary even though they are of course all woven in with effects on children.

Over on the other Webberly/Cass thread, there's a quote from Webberly's 'case'

Yesterday, Dr Hilary Cass appeared on BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg. During the interview, she told the nation that most gender-questioning children “grew out of it and became gay men.” She said that children have been “misled” by social media. She described clinicians who provide gender-affirming care as “charlatans.” She called established surgical procedures “quite brutal.” She claimed that social transition can “lock” a child onto a trajectory that “may not have been the correct natural trajectory for them.”

How kind of Webberly to pick out all the bits of the interview that show how right Cass is about so many things, even though she was wrong to say that both sides are 'weaponising' the debate.

She's seeing how the "both sides" plays out isn't she? There's only one side trying to get people sacked for voicing concerns about safeguarding children. Her comments were very much about safeguarding, the harms of social media along with how the "charlatans' of gender medicine target children with dodgy drugs and "brutal surgery"

I do regret that she still uses the "both sides" but thinking about it, I can see why she describes children as being weaponised. Even on this thread we've seen a poster wedging Gaza into the discussion 🙄. And there's no doubt that countless dodgy trans activist groups have targeted schools and children. wedging their demands for mixed sex undressing, the removal of children's safeguarding boundaries and making all language referencing women and girls "transphobic".

All downright dangerous but also creating a morass of issues that can divert the attention from the toxic issue of children believing they can change sex so discussions get diverted onto that?
Not sure I've explained that very well....

H Webberley has referred Dr Cass to the GMC based on that interview.
Raising concerns about the professional conduct of Dr Hilary Cass across all four domains of Good Medical Practice 2024

https://www.helenwebberley.com/p/i-have-referred-dr-hilary-cass-to

I know what you mean.

However, I also think that the interviewer would have acted that way regardless of whether Maya used pronouns nor not. Because Maya said, that regardless of what Kane wanted people to believe, he was still male (she could have said 'a man', I can't remember). I think that no matter what language Maya used, the point she was making that he was not a woman was enough for the presenter, I believe.

In a way, the presenter also showed the public just how over sensitive the media is towards this. It is far far too late.

I remember having conversations with women who have not been following these issues and who saw the footage of Khelif punching women. They were no longer willing to play along with this obfuscating language.

Yes, that is the one. As an aside, it absolutely warmed my cockles seeing that clip of Lord Hodge reading out the judgement and the elation of the women listening.

Maya was magnificent - accurate and matter of fact. And Kane was talking nonsense. But as soon as Maya said "himself" the presenter jumped on it, and it felt like the tone shifted then, and it ended with Cathy Newman clearly feeling she needed to make the caveat that not everyone would agree with Maya.

I wonder if she would have done that if Maya hasn't said "himself"? And I say that as someone who agrees 100% with Maya, but when I watch things like this, I try to view it through the lens of my "be kind" friends, who probably would have come away from that interview thinking how disrespectful Maya was to poor, sad Kane (and forgetting about all the other really great points she made).

It was the same scenario when Helen Joyce was on Women's Hour and she used the correct sex pronouns for Robyn White, and then the presenter misgendered him too and had to apologise at the end 🙄 I think you said in your previous post that in ten years time it might be different, and perhaps then we will have people using the correct pronouns on mainstream media without it feeling like they've stepped on a landmine. But we're not there yet, unfortunately.

Yes. But then, I don't consider Helen Joyce 'blunt' in her language. Clear, yes. Blunt, not so much.

This one? This interview where Maya correctly sexed the male barrister, Kane was a classic. I categorise this also as simply using clear and accurate language rather than being 'blunt'. But on watching it again, maybe it is getting towards blunt but with lots of context added.

Interesting Kane has repeated some of the trope we have seen on recent threads here lately about every cell in his body being 'feminised' (or whatever word he used). And that being so feminised there was no way to go into the male single sex toilet, all the while using a sex by deception example to justify his belief that 'people cannot tell' what sex he is. Plus his falsehood that he isn't even a 'transwoman', he is just a 'woman'.

Despite the very obvious cues on that interview that he is very much undeniably a male person. He did highlight the fallacies that some people use though.

The 'I have been a transsexual for decades' and 'I am not a transwoman' fallacies used to describe why a male person is unbelievably a female person.