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.

But this trial has already run at least three times: by the Dutch, with some improvement in wellbeing (and a dodgy swap of scales about gender dysphoria), but quite a significant loss of follow up longer term, and with one death; by the Tavistock, with negative results; and the biggest of its sort, with higher numbers, in the US, with a lot of hidden results (parameters that were measured by not published), and no improvement. The only difference, in this one, is the presence of a sort of control group. There is no improvement (compared to the previous trials) in the length of follow up. Nor there are attempts to understand who are the rare kids who might benefit: additional psychological tests, different, more uniform cohorts (e.g. same sex attracted, children with ASD...). A badly designed trial that doesn't give answers in unethical.

Conform to these regressive sex stereotypes or you need your healthy body parts chopped off is rather more conservative, you'd think.

Who has been doing that?

You don't seem to understand what this discussion is about.

Plz point to all the gender criticals critiquing the genocide then?

Oh wait, there are none.

We don't discuss everything on every thread. That would be ridiculous.

If you have something relevant to say about the subject of this thread, go ahead. If you want to discuss something else, find an appropriate thread for your comments, or start your own thread.

Most of the thread is an attack on Cass for recognising that:

A. Trans children/people exist sans delusions or perversions
B. Children are being exploited to resist this finding.

But yeah, keep up the pretence of understanding something other people don't.

I seem to have read a different article to many of you. I saw her comment about “both sides” as being about the people who want to see all transition banned completely, even for adults for whom all other options to alleviate their distress have been exhausted. We all know there are people out there who think gender non-conformity of any type is “unnatural,” and they have jumped on this cause to push their views, too.

The idea that Cass was blaming feminists for being too concerned about safeguarding is pretty fanciful. We are not the extremists, we’re just loud!

Cue 'derail' when facts get inconvenient.

Just a friendly reminder that the OP's whole premise was children weren't being used as a political football so I simply gave clarification AND an example of their exploitation.

That you feel this clarification is irrelevant smells strongly like defensiveness.

There’s also nothing in her comments to suggest she thinks “trans people exist,” let alone “trans children.” She’s talking about keeping the option for a very extreme treatment for a tiny minority of very distressed, very mentally ill adults. As ever, avoiding the mental illness at all is the real goal, not celebrating is as a glorious “coming out.”

If you'd read the whole thread you'd know that there are many posters on here supporting what Dr Cass said as well as criticism of her. Even those critical of what she said haven't made unsubstantiated attacks, but thoughtful comments explaining why they think she's wrong.

Until you arrived with your posts peppered with "meh" and "lol", this was a serious discussion with thoughtful posts on all sides.

But if you're serious about wanting to join the discussion, could you explain in more detail what you mean by "Trans children/people exist sans delusions or perversions"? What do you mean by "trans children"? What makes a child "trans"?

Quote where Cass says trans people are only mentally ill?

Again, you don't seem to understand the substance of the OP's claim where she disputed children being used as a political football or other posters agreeing with her but I appreciate why after being caught out that you are doggedly avoiding it under the pretence of having a 'serious discussion'. Lol.

As far as what makes children trans I defer to the experts like Cass not my own opinion who stated they do which I can only surmise is because some maintain a trans identity through out their whole lives.

She supports the proposed experiment on children, and is responsible for recommending this experiment in her report.

Why would she do that if she didn't believe in "trans children"?

I follow many 'Gender Criticals' on X many of which I disagree with on many other topics and the various genocides are critiqued on an hourly basis.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that is a basic building block of child development, when a child realises putting their hand in front of their eyes doesn't make everyone go away.

Again, you don't seem to understand the substance of the OP's claim where she disputed children being used as a political football

What do you mean by this? You seem to have misunderstood the OP's point.

I must admit, 'we should sterilise some kids because Gaza' is quite the stance to take. But it seems to be prolific amongst the omnicause people.

Oh I have an opinion on Gaza. But you can't have an opinion on Gaza unless it's 'the right one' because of all the utterly dim knobheads who know fuck all about history and politics.

Same knobends who only want to close conversations down about other off limits conversation usually too. They just repeat thought terminating clichés and chant slogan and I honestly question whether they can do research and hold an independent thought or opinion without having it signed off by their cool mates first.

Yet this is where I'd be PREJUDGED. Cos guess what, who is it with all the PREJUDICES? Is it those open and willing to have conversations about anything and to explore the difficult parts of the conversation or is it those who do their best to shut down conversations and insist that every becomes an unthinking robot who says exactly the same as them.

And no I do not support Israel. At all. Nor do I remotely support Reform.

Anyway this thread is about the disappointment of Cass and this country which we are permitted to talk about. We are also permitted to be concerned about the implications to a whole generation in terms of how this ideology ultimately isn't just about those kids on puberty blockers but also about how kids are being forced not to think for themselves and form opinions about the truth and freely express it. The Orwellian issue is very much alive and telling you you must say x, y or z otherwise you aren't a good citizen and you must be re-educated. This is a whole other level of concerning and dangerous which our friends telling us which political beliefs are valid REALLY wouldn't like us to talk about.

Imagine telling the truth about our own sex which none of us can hide or erase no matter how much we try. The horror.

I’m going to gently sidestep our overnight visitor, and come back to this, because I’ve had some overnight thoughts of my own about the possible hypothesis this study could be testing.

In my post that you replied to, I said that one thing it could be testing is the hypothesis that “stopping puberty in children with gender distress will alleviate their gender distress,” and I said that hypothesis needed unpacking. But I missed one of the most fundamental unpacks:

What does “alleviation of gender distress look like?”

If it looks like some sort of general removal of depression and anxiety, then why would puberty blockers be the drug being tested, when we already have vast reams of research on multiple sorts of anti-depressants? We don’t need a new drug in that particular market, so surely that isn’t what is being tested.

So it must be specifically about gender distress. And there are only two ways (that I can think of) one might think about that being alleviated:

One, “alleviating gender distress” could mean that the child no longer feels uncomfortable in their sexed body, that they no longer feel like they were “born in the wrong body.” That is a plausible definition of “alleviating gender distress” but there’s no plausible reason to expect that to be the outcome of stopping puberty. In fact, given everything we know about how puberty works, that is the opposite of what we might expect to happen. By stopping the child from going through the natural development of the brain (as well as the body) that happens during puberty, you are almost guaranteeing that they will have no “changes of mind,” as it were, about their view of their sexed body.

The alternative is, two: “alleviating gender distress” means “increased happiness simply because stopping puberty in this way is seen by the child as the first step on a path towards medically altering the body to make it fit their mental image of what their body should be.”

Now, if the latter is the case, that is a whole can of worms for the research team, and that the ethics committee should have been aware of. Because if that is the case, then you are not ever going to be able to test the “effectiveness” of just stopping puberty on gender distress - because it is not ever considered a just in the minds of the experimental subjects.

If you cannot say to the subjects “you will be given this drug and nothing more, ever” and have them believe you, then you are not testing just that drug - particularly when you are looking at psychological outcomes - you are testing the effect of knowing that they have (finally!, after begging and begging) taken the first of many steps on a path that they have already decided is the right path for them.

In other words, there is no way to test the effectiveness of stopping puberty on alleviating gender distress in isolation. Again, the whole premise of the study falls down.

I don’t get it. These are supposed to be the best of the best in terms of research. If one of my undergraduates had given me a research proposal with this many unfounded assumptions and untestable hypotheses, I’d have sent them back to start again.

Excuse me?

Substance?

So we should have any 14 year boy or male teacher going into the girls changing room and if the girls don't like changing in front of them it's transphobic? And you think this is a red herring and erroneously dragging children into a debate which some of our own kids are facing and are being distressed by on a daily basis because they can't say anything because otherwise they will be excluded or ostracised?

It's not even simply about trans issues. It's actually about abuse of power, top down dictated and social imbalances in political influence in inappropriate settings which go against lawful policies.

It's about how ideological belief is dominating and over riding reality and scientific knowledge in pursuit of power and how dangerous this is because it can then be used and weaponised by opposing politics in a way that harms every.

If you think it's about 'just wanting to pee' you simply prove your juvenile, shallow, rather ignorant and simplistic world view.

Cass is a massive disappointment because she can't think beyond the end of her nose and admit that kids really are at the pointy end of the debate over single sex spaces because we are literally teaching kids that they have no value and they don't deserve privacy and dignity from the opposite sex in the process.

It's quite the take to say that women talking about reality and issues with authoritarianism is an extremist position in a democracy.

She's really proven her grasp of the impact of this is utterly inadequate and limited.

Listen, if JK Rowling, Helen Joyce, Maya Forstater, Kathleen Stock, Matt Walsh Ben Shapiro, Abigail Shrier, Leo Sapir, Colin Wright, Bari Weiss etc etc were anti Gaza genocide you would know about it.

The fact is nary a whisper for that or any other serious child welfare scandal other than perhaps an islamophobic one off like Rotherham.

These people don't have any form on child protection other than one that happens to coincide with their pet peeve. Trans bigotry.

Again, numbers don't lie. In the whole scheme of child protection the instances justifying this amount of attention isn't anywhere near what it needs to be not to mention the domination of media space by it precludes other real child safety issues seeing the light of day.

Oh lord, at the point where the OP explicitly expresses her disbelief of child weaponisation you are clearly being wilfully ignorant.

Go on. Explain how girls are hardly most affected by having boys - bigger, stronger, faster - competing against them in sports teams, or by encountering adult men identifying as women in public lavatories and changing rooms? Some of the most high profile sex crimes committed by TIMs against girls have been in such places.
It’s clear you don’t consider girls to be of any importance or worth. I wonder why.

Are you strongly voicing your opposition to the genocide of the Uighurs in China or are you not interested in that one because the Chinese perpetrators aren't Jewish?

It’s clear you don’t consider girls to be of any importance or worth. I wonder why.

This is always the fundamental point of trans activism. It's a men's rights movement.