Wes Streeting addresses puberty blockers decision -excellent response

Unemotional, factual, measured......this government promised change and so far we really have it!

"just ridiculous, melodramatic and mendacious crap.

Yes, all of those things and dangerous too.
Bloody dangerous. The crazy, blue tick TRA who are telling bare faced lies about Cass are happy to put activism before safeguarding

This is the very least we could expect - it was already in motion thanks to the Tories.

There's so much else - Dodds and conversion therapy, will Kishwer Falkner be reappointed, what hate speech laws will they sanction or will they stand firmly behind freedom of speech, will they enforce impartiality in civil service and deal with rogue EDI training without the vexed issue of single sex spaces.

I hope KS has the courage but many of his front bench aren't in agreement let alone the back bench MPs.

This is how I feel. Deeply, deeply cynical, but would be oh so happy to discover that I was wrong about Labour.

ItsBinDayToday
A clinical trial will probably highlight the issues they know already exist is the best way. However his replies are full of people still calling him scum. They really don’t care about the long term health of these children as long as their feelings about this are affirmed.

How do you do a clinical trial without harming more children?

Exactly @Omlettes. How on earth could a trial get ethics approval?

I'm very happy that Wes Streeting has made it over this 'low bar'. I've been very critical of Labour - and I'm still anxious - but, if Anneliese Dodds and Bridget Phillipson can show a similar level of intelligence and mettle then I'll be delighted to eat a huge piece of humble pie with lashings of custard.

Good news but I won’t believe it until it’s done. What I found gobsmacking was the absolutely insane hysteria on Twitter from (mainly) young people ranting on about “murder”, “blood on his hands”, “evil to ignore all the evidence they’re safe” (!), “Cass had no qualifications at all to do this”, etc etc.

Just ridiculous, melodramatic and mendacious crap.

Leafstamp
Whilst this is great news, it shows how far things have gone when the Health Secretary gets abuse from ideologues for saying that children’s healthcare should be safe and evidence based.

Until Labour take further steps to undo the way trans ideology has advanced through society I remain cautious.

Agree - it may also illuminate to the wider Labour party the toxicity, stupidity and extreme and dangerous arrogance one particular 'side' has.

The problem is that they've thrown it to the health sec - Cass has given them the opportunity to drum down on children and pbs within health only. And to be honest, they've no choice but to follow that.

It sounds like they've returned to 'diagnosis' qualifies you for EA protection.

We know the diagnosis has foundations of sand. (This is an outstanding article on that: x.com/psychgirl211/status/1808825717204922755?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA)

Aside the above; it's well known that there are instructions online for what to say for a diagnosis.

We also know that 'diagnosis' and 'treatment' can include not removing penises.

There's been absolutely nothing said so far about tackling the basic ideology. One could argue that throwing back to health care does this, but even that is an ideological diagnosis.

Nothing particularly has changed except it's a permanent ban - though there is a trial for 1000 children. And those already on them remain on them.

Yes. Keep children safe - absolutely. It is massively important. Delighted he's doing this.

But what about social transitioning? Will gender-questioning children reach 18 thinking that the use of opposite sex spaces is their right and that at last they will be given the drugs that would have harmed them earlier ?

And once they turn 18, what then? What about current adults? Is there any evidence that over-18s aren't harmed by trans-affirming medication?

Wes Streeting may be determined to keep children physically safe, but is he equally determined to give away women's rights?

There is a reason that the adult clinics refused to hand over the results of their long term follow ups. And it isn't because the long term results were good! Otherwise they'd have handed them over.

Absolutely @Ladyslip

Indeed.

Unless you can do a retrospective study of the children who have already gone through GIDS which is what Cass attempted but activists opposed through every step.

How do you do a clinical trial without harming more children?

And that we regard it as ‘great news’ that the government is stopping unevidenced treatments for children, rather than assuming this would happen as standard, or rather, that the NHS would never have done this on the first place

Here's one possible reason:

“All the pushing was coming from the father to put the kid on puberty blockers. Thinking back on it now, I fear that the father was a paedophile and the child was being abused.”

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians-pvsckdvq2

https://archive.is/mOHg9

LGBT+ Labour responds to the story "reported Friday" but after he's set out his position on X

Note they're after a "trans-inclusive ban" on conversion practices in the King's Speech:

"An Open Letter to Wes Streeting MP from Dylan Naylor, LGBT+ Labour Trans officer (on Behalf of the National Committee) & Willow Parker, Labour Students' National Trans Officer

Dear Secretary of State,

We, the undersigned, are writing to you on behalf of the LGBT+ Labour national committee, and in accord with a great number of members and voters, to express our concerns over the impact of the decision, reported Friday, to extend indefinitely the current ban on puberty blockers for trans youth and to further request that you set out a clear timetable to allow access to quality health care for young trans people as part of safe clinical trials.

This recent decision, made subject to the outcome of a judicial review, appears to have been taken following the publication of the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (the ‘Cass Review’) earlier this year. Our concerns about the review (which are a matter of public record and about which we have met with you privately) aside, it is clear that protecting the mental and physical wellbeing of vulnerable, young trans people must be our over-riding concern. It is therefore vital that you clearly outline the scope and scale of the clinical trial that you have made a manifesto commitment to implementing (as outlined in recommendations 6, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the review) and provide clarification to those who were waiting to start a prescription of GnRH analogues before the ban took effect.

In line with the review’s recommendations, steps must be taken to cut waiting lists for trans youth, address long-term staffing issues, move towards a more decentralised, equitable system for accessing care (including through the provision of regional centres), provide comprehensive training for NHS staff on how best to support and work sensitively with trans and questioning young people, and better address the current toxicity of public debate which is actively harmful to young people.

We ask that you urgently set out the timeline, scope, and nature of the planned clinical trial and that you give reassurance to young trans people, their families and communities. We also urge you to outline any existing plans to consult and engage with young trans people and their families, and relevant charities and NGOs.

We hope that, under this new Labour government, progress can be made to reset the public discussion on trans rights, centring the humanity of, and compassion for, each individual trans person. We reiterate our calls for a de-medicalised system of statutory self-declaration for gender recognition and a review of Labour’s internal process of handling complaints about transphobic conduct within our party. Further to this, we are writing to the Leader of the House of Commons to encourage the inclusion of a promised trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices in the upcoming King’s Speech.
Yours in solidarity,

Dylan Naylor
Trans Officer, LGBT+ Labour
(On behalf of the LGBT+ Labour National Committee)

Willow Parker
Trans Officer, Labour Students"

https://www.lgbtlabour.org.uk/openletterronpubertyyblockers

https://x.com/lgbtlabour/status/1812489644128276866?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

https://x.com/lgbtlabour/status/1812489646674206915?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

And they are showing this. They don't care about the health of children.

Well done Wes Streeting. Evidence-based medicine over ideology-based every time.

I would like to see the individuals lying about Hilary Cass sued for defamation / libel. Not allowed to spread their poisonous lies on X.

@SidewaysOtter

I don’t think we know where that evidence is. Or if it’s exists. That is not to say that there haven’t been children who have taken their own lives whilst identifying as the opposite sex.

If these tragic deaths have happened then blaming lack of access to puberty blockers is extremely irresponsible and inaccurate.

The government suicide adviser has said the same.

We know that many of the children at gender clinics have comorbidities and/or life events and circumstances that would increase their suicide risk. This is clearly not a reason so stop them going through puberty.

(As an aside, AFAIK anorexia is the mental illness with the highest mortality rate).

It is a bit of a White Knight position 🤔

@SidewaysOtter nothing I can see as real evidence no. Just another conspiracy theory.

Where is the evidence for this uptick in suicides? The Reddit group keeps referencing “16 dead trans kids”.

As for the Fox Botherer, like others before him - certain GPs, charity CEOs etc - I suspect he’s found a career niche in being seen to be “speaking for trans kids”. Those who feel like victims (or feel their kids are victims) or who want to publicly display their Allyship will flock to people like that, which I should imagine is a fairly intoxicating position to find oneself in.

Problem is, once you’re in that position you don’t want to lose it let alone have to admit you’ve been wrong and potentially contributed to harm.

Is this bit true, does anyone know? Or more stuff he’s made up?

“Sixth, have you read the repeated submissions from civil servants to Victoria Atkins warning of the risks to vulnerable young people of the ban and urging her not to introduce it? Why are you also ignoring those risks?”