BBC interview with Cass. 'Both sides weaponised'

The interview with Cass is pre recorded, so the panel may or may not be asked to discuss.

Watching live at the moment and waiting for the interview. Heart sink moment was seeing that the pundit panel includes Billy Bragg and Emily Thornbury. It comes to something when you are relying on the Reform guest to give a common sense sane response.

"However I'm struggling to come up with a good excuse for her making this statement. Maybe like many of us she just struggles to express herself clearly under pressure???"

Going for the most generous slant, I'd have to agree @ApplebyArrows - my other theory is that she was taken aback by the vicious response by the TRAs to the report and is desperately trying to save her own skin. She may be justifying her stance by thinking there must be something in their sense of injustice because (sane) people don't act out like this.

No kids should be sterilised for being 'non-conforming'.

Yes and I wonder which “side” those threats came from. And whether the BBC interviewer asked her that question...

This. She's been got at or it now suits her.Very disappointing.

I think she grasps all if that but is sensibly focusing on the cohort of kids she is currently being presented with.

To me the article is generally sensible so I can't understand everyone else's disappointment.

She did say that she had had a lot of death threats.

I think she understands perfectly. She's just pretending not to.

The Cass review was clearly a positive development overall and I wouldn't want to just dismiss its author as an idiot.

However I'm struggling to come up with a good excuse for her making this statement. Maybe like many of us she just struggles to express herself clearly under pressure???

Annoyed and frustrated at how such a senior paediatrician can just not see the safeguarding issues here . Very concerning. I am disappointed to say the least.

I agree. I think she just did not grasp the sheer depth and breadth of the whole topic. As a paediatrician she probably had no clue about all the other aspects of this ideology, particularly AGP, and I suppose nobody else involved was going to tell her.

Victoria Smith did a great piece on the nonsensical idea that you can have a middle ground between something that is clearly morally wrong and something that isn’t.

unherd.com/newsroom/labours-school-trans-guidance-is-a-dangerous-middle-ground/

I've just read this interview and she's so sensible up until the support for the PB trial. She says there needs to be restraint because only a "tiny minority" of kids identifying as trans will end up on a full on pathway of drugs and surgeries. That makes sense.
And that a lot of kids will question for a couple of years or so and then snap out of it , for want of a better expression. That makes sense.
She talks about the unrealistic images kids think they can live up to - this put me in mind of the ex police officer thread from yesterday, there are photos on there of how he portrays himself online and what he actually looks like. I mean all they need to do is follow Dame Katy Denise on twitter and they'd see some realistic trans women!!!
She refers to the kids the Tavistock didn't follow up on and how much info could be gleaned from doing that, but then supports the trial. 🤷🏼‍♀️
I'm not sure how kids have been actively weaponised about the SC ruling practicalities, she'd need to give examples of that.

You and me both.

I’ve said this before - I am genuinely getting the impression that, while she is the face of the study, she had so little to do with the actual research that she doesn’t actually understand it in the depth that the researchers probably do. It’s either that or she is genuinely quite evil. I would prefer to think of her as ignorant.

There were two other reasons.

• That you could normalise AGP (and other fetishes, sexual kinks)
• you create a pool of children who could not have sex, but would be desperate for love, and were now in a very restricted category, very useful to being used by men, in a very demeaning way, including those attracted to children

I suspect that the BBC article is worse than the interview itself. The fact that they led with the ‘both sides’ headline is very telling.

Surely the discussion about single sex spaces is relevant to the treatment of gender dysphoria. If the children are told (by internet/medics/therapists) that once they take opp sex hormones they are entitled to use facilities of their choice when that is not actually the legal situation, they have not been given the info they need to give consent to the treatment. Similarly, now it has been so clearly demonstrated that they can’t access opp sex facilities, the discussion about how they will go about their daily lives - use facilities of their birth sex, or forever be on the hunt for places with single cubicles. Either way, it should be part of the ‘treatment’ discussion.

Yet another person with whom I am massively disappointed.

And it won’t work, they hate her.

She has just basically weaponised kids herself to appease activists. Nice.

I know, mine are 21 and 18, they are in the group when this peaked, mainly during lockdown. Thankfully, mine were pretty immune to this (two biologist parents might have helped) but I saw several of their peers going down this route, one of them still crowdfunding for surgery. Cass seems to be insulated from all this.

I don't understand how a paediatrician does not understand that single sex spaces are part of child safeguarding.