Wes Streeting addresses puberty blockers decision -excellent response

I appreciate the mature and facts based responses so far, goodness knows we need grown ups in government.

I appreciate too why it would be very appealing to just try and be neutral and take no direct responsibility at all. It won't however work.

Almost like they did epic fence sitting to win votes! Even though that also lost them votes. 🤔🤷‍♀️

Remarkable isn't it that in having to face they are actually in charge and have to abide by the law and be impartial, they find themselves able to recognise facts, and not feel they have to be seen waving the rainbow flag.

Part of me is almost longing for a full on trans outrage against Labour to see how they deal with it.

If there'd been a bit more of this attitude about Labour before the election, I might even have voted for them.

Hansard link:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-07-24/debates/0A00C941-B2FA-4CD0-837B-9E8A928FA8DB/Engagements

Nadia Whittome
(Nottingham East) (Lab)
Q3. I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. Many young trans people and their families are extremely concerned about the restrictions on puberty blockers implemented by the last Government. One of my constituents, a parent of a trans child, told me: “I’m so worried about my child. I’m terrified for what this means for them and where Britain is going on these issues.”Will the Prime Minister meet young trans people, their families and organisations supporting them, so he can hear why they feel so strongly that the restrictions must be reversed? (900052)
The Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend back to her place. Our guiding principle must be the wellbeing of children. This is a serious Government, and we will approach that question with care, not with inflammatory dividing lines. The Cass review was clear that there is not enough evidence on the long-term impact of puberty blockers to know whether they are safe. The Health Secretary will consult organisations supporting young people and families, and I will ensure that there is a meeting with my hon. Friend and the relevant Minister as soon as that can be arranged.

I was pleased to hear KS's response to that foolish MP, Whittome. To hear Labour taking safeguarding children seriously is quite a relief (especially after reading so many dismal comments about safeguarding from alleged labour supporters).
They may still be captured by the motley crew of trans extremists about women's rights, but it's an important step to start to say no to these people - especially in relation to the abuse of children (which is what PBs are).

Its more how often this and related questions are asked by Labour MPs of any status.

ie trying to make the PM look out of touch with "vulernable" young people.

I'm not sure Keir will see the flapping of low calibre MPs as undue pressure, tbh!

I think this maybe her asking the question at 02:20

Just adding this here as not sure it deserves its own thread.

Nadia Whittome MP

Many young trans people and their families are hugely concerned about the puberty blockers ban.

Criticisms of the Cass review aside, this policy goes far beyond its recommendations.

At #PMQs, I asked the government to meet with those affected to understand its impact.

https://x.com/NadiaWhittomeMP/status/1816097320850554900

Starmer gave response in line with what Streeting had said. Follow the evidence etc..

Sorry only have twitter link, but as yet not available via Hansard, but presumably will be later.

Just thought worth noting that pressure will be coming from within Labour Party.

oh, apologies Duc748, I think I did get the wrong end of the stick there. Not sure the odd slightly less bonkers piece would escape the swivel eyed loon Viner's gaze though.

I think you misunderstand me, @lonelywater . I'm well aware of the Guardian's position, but there have a few decent pieces in there recently. And I don't think that will have pleased Viner at all. Hence her giving a voice to the charmless Aidan.

you are fucking kidding, right? The Gruan has been the TRA's house journal ever since, and only because of Viner's stewardship-it will remain a total basket case until she is replaced be some one from planet earth.

Hmm not convinced its Viner putting her foot down, so much as smelling the wind blowing in her direction and taking evaisive action.
And its very recent, although the Observer has been pretty good on this issue from the get go. But many people get the two mixed up, understandbly as it comes under the Gs website.

EdenPalmersTerfAuntie · Today 06:14

I noticed that the groomiad is asking for responses...

But only 300 word letters, which can be carefully selected so as to publish the most gushingly misninformed and sycophantic drivel, rather than opening comments below the article.

For some mysterious reason.

Well, quite; but you have quite a few dishonest commentators, such as Kelly, pretending that Streeting pulled the decision out of a hat and papers like the Guardian, who know absolutely that that's not the case, pushing that untruth.

No problem then, as it's Cass and her team that have made the decision. Wes is just acting upon advice from clinicians.

Theeyeballsinthesky · Yesterday 18:15

"Ah the guardian - always on the wrong side of history!"

Decisions around the tiny minority for whom the option could be helpful should be made by clinicians, not Wes Streeting

Decisions about who to write articles ought to be decided by people who tell the truth, not those who ignore the fact that Dr. Hilary Cass and her team are doctors and highly experienced medical researchers.

From the guardian article
"My colleagues and I know that puberty blockers can be helpful for a carefully selected minority of transgender youth" so we dished them out like Smarties at playtime.
Elsewhere he estimates that pbs were given to about 100 children per year, and he worked in NHS gender services for a decade, so that's apx 1000 children he's helped damage, just on this.
Also, he uses the offensive term "intersex" which people with disorders of sexual development have asked not to be used to describe them, disrespectful prick.
I noticed that the groomiad is asking for responses...

......Pleased and thankful to see today that there is evidence of no increased risk for suicide following pb ban, and that it's been spelt out that talking about the potential for it could actually cause risk.

The Guardian has been taking a few tentative steps back to reality lately; Kath Viner must have put her foot down.

The Guardian are beyond frustrating on this issue. I despair of them ever seeing sense.

Aidan Kelly, ex Tavistock. Here's a thread about him.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3950421-Talk-by-Dr-Aidan-Kelly-Tavistock

It looks as though the video posted there has been deleted, but Glinner posted it again here.

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-banality-of-aidan?r=ahi4t

That’s plain language and addresses all the points being made by various American and UK activists. In a normal society an analysis like this would calm things down; sadly, in current year I don’t expect people making outrageous claims about suicide to be chastened in any way.

Ah the guardian - always on the wrong side of history!

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/19/transgender-children-ban-puberty-blockers-wes-streeting