BBC interview with Cass. 'Both sides weaponised'

[RedToothBrush]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k1vkmxgd6o

Asked if children had been let down by an adult-led debate, Cass said "absolutely", adding they "were also caught up in all the issues about single-sex spaces and sports and safe areas for women which were actually not to do with the children but they were somehow part of a football within it".

This woman is proving herself exceedingly stupid and self serving.

Children were caught up in a debate about single sex spaces and sports which aren't about children?!!!

Wtf?

So let me get this straight. Young girls and teenage girls don't need and use single sex facilities. And issues with sports also don't impact on teenage girls.

Is that what she's saying????!!!!

Fuck off. And keeping fucking off some more.

This woman is proving herself to be an idiot and is trying to desperately make herself look better in the eyes of activists. She doesn't give a fuck about children. She's playing politics here for her own sake.

The issues around kids and single sex facilities are some of the most compelling!

I'm just staggered by this shit show.

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.

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

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

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

"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.

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.

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

Really sensible, though, to get an old bloke with a guitar on to set out the progressive position.

Hmmm. I thought the article was generally sensible and balanced.

She repeatedly makes the point that the majority of children will grow out of it (therefore should not be put on a medical pathway).

She also highlights the danger of socially transitioning young children.

And also that a lot of it is about children who are gender non-conforming or gay.

She does also say that strident trans activists have not been helpful.

But.

I think she does still believe there is a very small cohort of people who will be happiest transitioning. I think she is probably correct in this.

She also believes that it's not helpful to take the view that no-one should ever transition. I actually agree with her here.

I think when she's talking about single-sex spaces, she's not saying they're not important, just that the discussion about how best to treat children got all caught up in the wider debate which has been very heated and polarised.

Where I'd disagree with her (I think) is that I think it's likely to be impossible to know in childhood which are the tiny minority of people who will be happiest transitioning in the long term. Which is why I've never really understood the PB trial. Unless she thinks it's the only possible way to provide some data to really stop off-label use of PBs.

Overall though I do think it's a sensible article and I disagree that she doesn't understand the topic.

From the interview:

Asked if children had been let down by an adult-led debate, Cass said "absolutely", adding they "were also caught up in all the issues about single-sex spaces and sports and safe areas for women which were actually not to do with the children but they were somehow part of a football within it".
"That's a real shame that children have been weaponised."

I think she may mean that the issues went beyond those relating just to kids with dysphoria, so I'm not fussed about that.

The PB trial, though ...

She sounds confused.

She thinks there are more children and young people with gender dysphoria because people are "less locked into gender stereotypes".

But she also thinks that children have been misled to believe they're trans because they don't conform to stereotypes.

So on the one hand she thinks a move away from gender stereotyping is causing transness in children, and on the other she thinks children believe they're trans because gender stereotyping is so strong and they don't conform.

This is what happens when you try to convince yourself that 'being trans' is real. But also she's showing that 'trans' is purely stereotypes. I wonder if she's thought about why children need to be medicated and sterilised because of stereotyping.

She could quite easily say 'From what I have seen there is some evidence that some children might be happier from a transition. However at the pre pubertal stage, there is absolutely no way of knowing who that might be. There is also no way of knowing what level of transition from wearing the opposite sexed clothes to surgery might benefit the child when they are an adult. The harms from the interventions are already known to be wide ranging and lifelong and there was no attempt from the adult clinics to work towards figuring out what the whole thing might look like.'

But instead, sure lets sterilise more kids and only track them for 2 years and do the whole exact same thing again.

On now bbc TV1

There's no doubt that children have been weaponised - just not in the way she suggests. You see it on here with the trans extremists flipping conversations about children into "trans folk" and tediously droning on about their drugs, surgery, bodies and infinite permutations of their personal journey - which apparently justifies sterilising other people's children.

I suppose if you're working in the trans captured NHS with numerous senior staff over keen on transitioning children it must feel important to comply with the "both sides" demands.

She just needs to remember that it isn't women making the physical threats to her and other people's safety - that only comes from one side. Women simply highlight the uncomfortable facts and reality about the trans cult using words. 🙄

She was on the BBC and lots of those silent ones in the middle would have been listening. She got across many of sensible points that we have been banging on about for years and even Billy Bragg and Emily Thornbury listened even if their take away wasn't quite what she said. Who else would have been able to do that?

I think she's primarily concerned with maintaining her reputation and trying to come acros as reasonable. She's also quite enjoying the acclaim/noteriety that resulted from the Cass review and the continued references to her name, both here and abroad. She's now moved on to commenting on the proposed social media ban for under 16s.

That she hasn't thought through the links between adult male transitioners and their influence on the concept, itself, of child transition is somewhat confounding. Not to mention the effect of social media and on-line trans influencers ( linked to the above issue of a social media ban) on the minds of vulnerable teenagers.

Everything is connected.

The issue of single sex spaces services and sports will inevitably impact upon child transitioners...certainly if they are encouraged to believe that they will be able to access all of the services and facilities of the opposite sex. Plus, everybody is affected if children are being told to expect everyone to fall into line and use their chosen pronouns...including their teachers and classmates.

There has been very little coverage of the rights of teachers to refuse to go along with any of this...it seems to be implicitly suggested that teachers will automatically use pronouns if the child's parents have consented to them being socially transitioned.

It’s the BBC’s take on what she said. While i raised my eyebrows at the headline I’m hanging fire on the rest until I get the transcript of what she actually said. A lot of the quotes seem fine to me and I want the context of the “both sides” one before passing judgement.

Yes, that is certainly confused. It is the same argument that trans activists use to suggest that it is not the gender roles that are oppressive, but the fact of one's sex itself. As you say, she has left the concept of 'being trans' totally unexamined.

You can watch it now on iplayer.

Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg - 15/02/2026 - BBC iPlayer

If she does understand the issue - it seems that understanding was deemed to be of lower importance than her attempt to come across as balanced and on everyone's side. Rather than providing clarity - she has given everyone a little of what they want to take from it. And the word 'football' will be launched upon, as will the 'weaponising' headline.

Haven’t read the article but have just watched the interview. Emily Thornbury can just fuck off, is my measured take on it. She managed to drop “most vulnerable” in of course. Even Billy Bragg came over as less mental (relatively). What a shame this was discussed with that panel, given it’s huge platform.

That seems to be a very ill considered position of hers. I cannot believe she cannot understand that children are covered by single sex spaces and sports provisions. That seems very remiss and I am sure people
have tried to explain it. Maybe she needs an hour with a couple of other members of the HoL, such as Baronesses Nicholson, Davies and Grey-Thompson just as a start.

The thing is there are some people who will live unhappy lives whether that’s due to mental health issues or their own personalities or other reasons, we simply can’t bend the world to fit such a small minority.

I thought she came across as absolutely sensible and reasonable and the juxtaposition when it cut to the panel with Emily Thornberry and Billy Bragg getting hysterical with the "most vulnerable people in the world" was illuminating.

The Cass report had a transformative impact on kickstarting the grown-ups to be able to say "hang on, let's take a look at this and stop with the blind be-kind all must be affirmed" path that we were on.
Gathering actual evidence (because the previous decade of puberty blockers for all who made it through the wait lists or went private didn't actually gather reliable data) and having balanced conversations that don't result in hysterical stand-offs and no-platforming is what is needed.

I agree the children's sport is a pre-cursor to adult sport and girls are harmed when boys get to take their places. I agree that school changing rooms and residential trips need biological sex to be acknowledged for effective safeguarding. I think her comments on that were more off-the-cuff and missed some nuance.

But to say she doesn't understand the issue or she's an idiot is clearly not the case.

She was absolutely the most sensible and intelligent person in that segment.

She sounds confused. She thinks there are more children and young people with gender dysphoria because people are "less locked into gender stereotypes". But she also thinks that children have been misled to believe they're trans because they don't conform to stereotypes.

I actually think she's right, that 1) there is more acceptance of being gender non-conforming than there used to be, but 2) young people are equating being gender non-conforming with being trans.

I think both of these things are true in the groups of teens I know, particularly the slightly "alternative" ones.