Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

BBC interview with Cass. 'Both sides weaponised'

257 replies

RedToothBrush · 15/02/2026 06:27

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
OldCrone · 15/02/2026 16:05

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 15:18

Once there is decent evidence which says this % of the children treated became incontinent, had osteoporosis, memory problems, dental problems, heart disease, auto immune diseases etc, the extreme trans activists will lose all their power in this fight. I saw a study recently which found that 95% of women using testosterone for 'gender transition' had some degree of urinary incontinence, and these were young women. A shocking number had fecal incontinence on top.

I can't imagine many young women consenting when told upfront that they will be wetting themselves as a result. But we need that hard data not just emotion.

Show quote history

If there have already been studies published, then we already have the hard data. We don't need to sacrifice the health of more children.

tropicaltrance · 15/02/2026 16:06

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 15:18

Once there is decent evidence which says this % of the children treated became incontinent, had osteoporosis, memory problems, dental problems, heart disease, auto immune diseases etc, the extreme trans activists will lose all their power in this fight. I saw a study recently which found that 95% of women using testosterone for 'gender transition' had some degree of urinary incontinence, and these were young women. A shocking number had fecal incontinence on top.

I can't imagine many young women consenting when told upfront that they will be wetting themselves as a result. But we need that hard data not just emotion.

Show quote history

Was the study you saw not "hard data" then?

OldCrone · 15/02/2026 16:07

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 15:29

Of course they do, they're children!

This isn't about children at all, it's about the adults involved who are happily enabling this - the teachers, parents and doctors. We need proper evidence of harm to stop that.

Show quote history

Surely that's the wrong way round. Do we need evidence of harm in order to stop this, or do we need evidence of benefit to start it?

What is the benefit to these children? What is their medical condition? Why is this the 'best' treatment?

EasternStandard · 15/02/2026 16:08

I don’t think she’s the strongest voice for children on this. Re trials and seemingly ok with ‘social transition’ in schools after saying it wasn’t a neutral act.

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 16:10

tropicaltrance · 15/02/2026 16:06

Was the study you saw not "hard data" then?

Show quote history

??? The study was about testosterone, not puberty blockers. My point was that the same sort of evidence is needed for puberty blockers in this cohort and thanks to the tavistock, it doesn't exist.

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 16:11

OldCrone · 15/02/2026 16:07

Surely that's the wrong way round. Do we need evidence of harm in order to stop this, or do we need evidence of benefit to start it?

What is the benefit to these children? What is their medical condition? Why is this the 'best' treatment?

Show quote history

How do you propose we get evidence of benefit?

OldCrone · 15/02/2026 16:13

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 16:10

??? The study was about testosterone, not puberty blockers. My point was that the same sort of evidence is needed for puberty blockers in this cohort and thanks to the tavistock, it doesn't exist.

Show quote history

One thing that the Tavistock experiment did show was that all but one of the participants on their previous trial progressed from puberty blockers to cross sex hormones. So the effects of testosterone are almost certain to be relevant to the female participants in this trial.

OldCrone · 15/02/2026 16:14

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 16:11

How do you propose we get evidence of benefit?

Show quote history

They could start with defining what the condition is they're trying to treat, and what a positive outcome would look like. I don't think they've done that.

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 16:22

OldCrone · 15/02/2026 16:13

One thing that the Tavistock experiment did show was that all but one of the participants on their previous trial progressed from puberty blockers to cross sex hormones. So the effects of testosterone are almost certain to be relevant to the female participants in this trial.

Show quote history

But that doesn't answer the question about puberty blockers specifically. The harms of testosterone aren't the harms of puberty blockers. They are two separate things.

I appreciate that most kids, once on that pathway, don't get off it and that's a whole other problem.

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 16:27

OldCrone · 15/02/2026 16:14

They could start with defining what the condition is they're trying to treat, and what a positive outcome would look like. I don't think they've done that.

Show quote history

I thought they were still saying that the condition is extreme distress with the sexed body, tied to a strong belief that being the opposite sex is the solution (bearing in mind that we're talking about children, not mature adults, so immature reasoning is to be expected). So the treatment aims to relieve the distress/anxiety. We do not have to agree that the child is right to accept that their distress is real.

But if they say it's a mental health benefit, they still have to use them in a study to prove it and we are back in the same place.

The study at KCL assesses emotional wellbeing and suicidal feelings (putting aside arguments about whether this is the right outcome to consider).

OldCrone · 15/02/2026 16:50

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 16:22

But that doesn't answer the question about puberty blockers specifically. The harms of testosterone aren't the harms of puberty blockers. They are two separate things.

I appreciate that most kids, once on that pathway, don't get off it and that's a whole other problem.

Show quote history

They're not two separate things if nearly 100% of children on puberty blockers progress to cross sex hormones. They're part of the same treatment path.

OldCrone · 15/02/2026 16:54

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 16:22

But that doesn't answer the question about puberty blockers specifically. The harms of testosterone aren't the harms of puberty blockers. They are two separate things.

I appreciate that most kids, once on that pathway, don't get off it and that's a whole other problem.

Show quote history

But we know about all the harms of hormone blockers from children who've taken them for precocious puberty, women who've taken them for endometriosis and adults of both sexes who've taken them for cancer.

This trial isn't to find out about unwanted side effects which are well known. I'm not sure what they are trying to find out though. It seems exist just to appease the trans lobby.

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 16:58

OldCrone · 15/02/2026 16:50

They're not two separate things if nearly 100% of children on puberty blockers progress to cross sex hormones. They're part of the same treatment path.

Show quote history

But we need to break that path down and assess the harms separately. It's two separate drugs. Girls who consent to puberty blockers are not also consenting to testosterone, even if most of them use it later. And in order to consent to puberty blockers, we have to know specifically what the benefits and risks of them are because the question is whether they should be used in this cohort at all.

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 17:06

OldCrone · 15/02/2026 16:54

But we know about all the harms of hormone blockers from children who've taken them for precocious puberty, women who've taken them for endometriosis and adults of both sexes who've taken them for cancer.

This trial isn't to find out about unwanted side effects which are well known. I'm not sure what they are trying to find out though. It seems exist just to appease the trans lobby.

Show quote history

I know what these drugs are better than most, because I've been on them. Fwiw they were shit, they didn't work, and put me on a pathway to far more serious surgical intervention.

But we do not know what the effects are for these drugs in this cohort. We cannot assume it's the same as in the others. That's not how drug testing and drug approval works. A lack of evidence is what created this mess in the first place and proper empirical evidence is needed to get us out of it.

The question is whether the well known harms are outweighed by the benefits, whatever those are, or if there even are any, and the answer is that no one knows because the gender clinics decided not to look.

PriOn1 · 15/02/2026 17:06

I haven’t read the full thread, but went to the article to see if she really used the word charlatans, which she does.

I’m genuinely shocked as it sounds to me like she wants to experiment on children in order to finally put the argument that there’s any benefit to bed. At the best possible interpretation, she’s saying some children are being over treated, thus the experiment should go ahead.

But this is the NHS. They should be working towards best practice and “do no harm”. Just because there are appalling private doctors doing harm, it’s not the NHSs job to sort that out.

I realise it wouldn’t test any drug regimes, but the most obvious pathway would be to return to the previous gold standard treatment, which was watchful waiting, perhaps somewhat modified psychiatrically. During that, over a set period , ask the medics to come up with a diagnostic regime to identify which children will persist.

Once they can prove they can accurately identify the group (which Cass says exists) of children who will eventually go on to transition as adults, for whom the only relief is transitioning (not sure I believe it myself, but she clearly does) THEN they can look at whether there is a way that transitioning could occur safely at a younger age.

Really, the amount of people who see how far into this shit we are and throw up their hands and say we have to give way to them to some extent, because doing the right thing is too difficult in case the extremists do more harm, is shocking.

Shedmistress · 15/02/2026 17:13

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 17:06

I know what these drugs are better than most, because I've been on them. Fwiw they were shit, they didn't work, and put me on a pathway to far more serious surgical intervention.

But we do not know what the effects are for these drugs in this cohort. We cannot assume it's the same as in the others. That's not how drug testing and drug approval works. A lack of evidence is what created this mess in the first place and proper empirical evidence is needed to get us out of it.

The question is whether the well known harms are outweighed by the benefits, whatever those are, or if there even are any, and the answer is that no one knows because the gender clinics decided not to look.

Show quote history

They DO know thats why they deliberately didn't keep long term records and designed this trial to only have a 2 year follow up.

What cohort of kids needs to be sterilised to be treated successfully? What would the differential diagnosis be? It's like saying 'Oh your favourite colour is blue is it, that means we need to remove your left toe'. It is nonsensical.

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 17:19

Shedmistress · 15/02/2026 17:13

They DO know thats why they deliberately didn't keep long term records and designed this trial to only have a 2 year follow up.

What cohort of kids needs to be sterilised to be treated successfully? What would the differential diagnosis be? It's like saying 'Oh your favourite colour is blue is it, that means we need to remove your left toe'. It is nonsensical.

Show quote history

I know. We all know. But there's no paper trail to prove it and anecdata isn't enough. Therefore what's the alternative? To not do trials and it continues being peddled by private clinics who advertise on Instagram who don't need to mention the risks because there aren't studies to back it up?

spannasaurus · 15/02/2026 17:20

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 17:19

I know. We all know. But there's no paper trail to prove it and anecdata isn't enough. Therefore what's the alternative? To not do trials and it continues being peddled by private clinics who advertise on Instagram who don't need to mention the risks because there aren't studies to back it up?

Edited
Show quote history

Closing down the private clinics who are illegally supplying puberty blockers would be a start.

Igneococcus · 15/02/2026 17:21

Edited: Ooops, sorry, wrong thread.

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 17:27

spannasaurus · 15/02/2026 17:20

Closing down the private clinics who are illegally supplying puberty blockers would be a start.

Show quote history

We still need studies for the longer term.

There have to be studies specific to this cohort and there aren't.

spannasaurus · 15/02/2026 17:32

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 17:27

We still need studies for the longer term.

There have to be studies specific to this cohort and there aren't.

Edited
Show quote history

It's not legal for puberty blockers to be prescribed to under 18s in the UK ( I think there may be some exceptions where puberty blockers were already prescribed before the ban)

From the NHS website

  • Sale and supply of puberty blockers via private prescriptions for the treatment of gender incongruence and/or gender dysphoria to be banned indefinitely in UK for under 18s

And how is this cohort different to the children given puberty blockers by Tavistock?

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 17:40

spannasaurus · 15/02/2026 17:32

It's not legal for puberty blockers to be prescribed to under 18s in the UK ( I think there may be some exceptions where puberty blockers were already prescribed before the ban)

From the NHS website

  • Sale and supply of puberty blockers via private prescriptions for the treatment of gender incongruence and/or gender dysphoria to be banned indefinitely in UK for under 18s

And how is this cohort different to the children given puberty blockers by Tavistock?

Show quote history

They aren't different.

But there is no data for the tavistock cohort because the tavistock didn't track them. That's the root of the problem.

So how do we get data without starting again with a new cohort? Do we just not bother, and in 10 years this quietly starts up again and we have tavistock 2.0?

Shedmistress · 15/02/2026 17:43

Doobeedoop · 15/02/2026 17:40

They aren't different.

But there is no data for the tavistock cohort because the tavistock didn't track them. That's the root of the problem.

So how do we get data without starting again with a new cohort? Do we just not bother, and in 10 years this quietly starts up again and we have tavistock 2.0?

Show quote history

This trial WILL ALSO NOT GET DATA AS THEY ARE ONLY TRACKING THEM FOR 2 YEARS.

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 15/02/2026 17:45

DisappearingGirl · 15/02/2026 09:31

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.

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.

I feel like the key part she has failed to consider is that there is no way of telling which ones these kids are.

You can’t measure it by who is most persistent or the most fervent as some kids are extremely persistent and fervent (I was one except that I spent many years aiming for a pony as my end goal, not sterilisation and stunted brain development). There is no crystal ball or objective test. Therefore her point is irrelevant and only potentially valid in hindsight.

Swipe left for the next trending thread