The article itself does it.
Cass says:
The physician, 66, who has spoken about the toxic debate around the issue, also revealed that she had been sent “vile” abusive emails and been given security advice to help keep her safe.
Of her critics, Cass said: “I have been really frustrated by the criticisms, because it is straight disinformation. It is completely inaccurate.
“It started the day before the report came out when an influencer put up a picture of a list of papers that were apparently rejected for not being randomised control trials.
“That list has absolutely nothing to do with either our report or any of the papers.
“If you deliberately try to undermine a report that has looked at the evidence of children’s healthcare, then that’s unforgivable. You are putting children at risk by doing that.”
Cass explicitly states that the issue has been around disinformation from pro-trans activists unhappy at the report saying things they don't want to hear and the clinical decision to remove low quality research papers from the review for being substandard and below the minimum level expected for an academic study.
The Times then goes on to say the following stating 'both sides' in the opening sentence, but when you read what Cass says herself, there's no both sides about it.
Cass said she was pleased that, for the most part, both sides in the debate over the treatment of children with gender dysphoria had not “weaponised” her report. But she has still had to deal with a “pretty aggressive” response from some, particularly those in activist groups. She is also staying away from Twitter/X.
Cass said: “There are some pretty vile emails coming in at the moment. Most of which my team is protecting me from, so I’m not getting to see them.” Some of them contained “words I wouldn’t put in a newspaper”, she said.
She added: “What dismays me is just how childish the debate can become. If I don’t agree with somebody then I’m called transphobic or a Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist].”
Cass said the abuse spiked every time the review said something “people don’t like”.
So her issue has been from 'activist groups'. There's not particularly any organised gender critical activist groups. There are the likes of sex matters and the LGB Alliance but these have been very relieved by the report. And ironically reason there aren't particularly any gender critical activist groups is precisely because of the hostility and abuse women have faced...
Then it states:
Online discussion hardened following her interim report, in 2022, and the selection of Liz Truss as Tory Party leader and prime minister, she said. “That was when the debate got more aggressive and people got into bunkers, then the online furore heats up.”
“I’m much, much more upset and frustrated about all this disinformation than I am about the abuse. The thing that makes me seethe is the misinformation.”
One of the key things that the gender critical side has been seeking to establish from the word go, has been a recognition of the seek amount of deliberate misinformation that has been peddled and the aim has been to shine 'sunlight' onto this. The desire has been for evidence lead decision making which has been smeared as 'anti-trans' throughout.
I find it stunning even at this stage despite the words coming out of Hilary Cass's mouth, we still are being told it's 'both sides'.
Can I just say, in a debate that is desperate for evidence based decisions can we please have evidence of the degree this is 'both sides' because actually this matters at this point.
Is this an extremist issue? Should we start looking at it and discussing it in these terms? And if it is, can we please identify the players in this rather than giving a vague 'activist group', because of we know these are members of activist groups, perhaps we'd like to name them as being problematic. At this point, Cass is literally saying they are a risk to the health of children.
It then goes on to say, again explicitly, what the suppression of data for adult services was all about
Cass also revealed that the Tavistock clinic had refused to co-operate with the review by not handing over data on detransitioners who had been examined by a psychiatrist.
The review team wanted to assess what risk factors in a patient’s history could possibly be linked to detransition. A consultant who had carried out an audit of information from Gids patients had agreed to give it to the Cass team.
But Cass said: “We asked the Tavistock to have it and they wouldn’t give it to us. It was very disappointing.”
So yes, it's all about detransitioners. Y'know the detransitioners who are supposed to exist. The ones that could consent, and absolutely understood what transitioning was all about and weren't missold transition and weren't under 'undue pressure' to consent, but then detransitioned.
Something still is very wrong here, that the Times still can't bring itself to name the problem and state that actually there is an extremist cult issue with pro-trans activist groups which has led to it being impossible to have evidence based care for children and when a problem was identified those same activists have done and continue to do as much as possible to suppress this and intimidate and abuse anyone who asks the right ethical question.
When are we going to start saying there's is an extremist problem amongst pro-trans activists?