Puberty blockers: Can a drug trial solve one of medicine's most controversial debates?

Tweet by journalismSEEN

x.com/journalismseen/status/1866073602635809033?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Reminder - you can send the BBC appreciations as well as complaints.

Usually with an appreciation you might not need a response. That means it’s easiest to call in and record a message.

The phone numbers are the bottom of this page.

bbc.co.uk/contact/compla…

I don't think there should be a trial either.

Because a trial is only necessary if you buy into the beliefs of gender ideology, that there are gender identities, that matter more than sex, and can get born in the opposite sex. And the only way to fix this is via hormones and surgery and becoming a life long medical patient with a life long endochrine imbalance.

Some adults may have settled gender incongruence. Some may be able to manage those feelings without physical medical intervention. Some others may decide the best way to manage these feelings is hormones and surgery. This option should always be the last resort and for adults only.

No child should be put on a medical pathway to 'transition'.

I always assumed that was the plan. Get the activists to justify their case in a context based on science and not emotional blackmail, ie reversing the burden of proof that had held sway for more than a decade.

@nauticant I had hoped but nothing in this horror show has never been as it should be.

100% cosmetic surgery

With body dysmorphia issues, surgery is known not to help. Cbt and other therapies are the most effective treatments.

"The benefits' vs "the potential harms".

What exactly are the benefits?

For males: the ability to 'pass' more successfully in adulthood as a woman (on a superficial first glance, at any rate).

For females: ?????

But even if the ability to 'pass' more successfully as the opposite sex in adulthood is the aim, why is this seen as important? What is the benefit, to the individuals concerned and also to wider society, in people successfully masquerading as the opposite sex?

"The benefits' vs "the potential harms".

So telling.

There's an article on this very subject in the Telegraph, I don't think it's been posted before

https://archive.ph/9XPIr

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/07/nhs-puberty-blocker-trial-activists-cass-review-safeguards/

Well absolutely this is true, Mrs O.

At the same time- I think what Lady's point highlights though, is that even the supposed reasoning for why the 'affirming care' model (ie it's all about being able to 'pass' in adulthood) for children even exists, is flawed. The reason this whole madness I based on.

I never know if I'm using the definition of 'first principles' correctly, but I think this is challenging the approach (medicalisation) from first principles?- Their first principles?

If the whole basis is on the need to 'pass' in adulthood (as justification for the benefits outweighing the risks in puberty blocking) and as Lady rightly points out, this need doesn't actually apply to females (as the largest and increased cohort), then the very basis of that reasoning can be challenged.

How would you measure an outcome? Child A has poor brain development and crumbling bones, but is 2% happier than five years ago?

A really important question.

Yes, this is a very important point that's not made often or clearly enough

If the purpose of this 'treatment' is for these children to 'pass' as members of the opposite sex, that falls into the category of cosmetic surgery. No child should be given harmful medication for this reason.

Was that the excuse?

If so that's even more insane when you consider that a GDPR exemption clause called "public task" exists for cases like scientific research.

Here's a thread about BeeWell:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5209872-the-beewell-survey

Apparently it's absolutely fine for them to access the future health and other records of children for the rest of their lives (should BeeWell decide to do this). No need for parents to give permission at all. Because apparently there's no other way of getting a data set to fulfil the needs of the study. That's the criteria for this GDPR exemption.

Yet..... apparently it's totally fine for the NHS to perform experiments on children's brains because it's not possible to use existing data under GDPR laws.

Make it make sense 🤯

@AlisonDonut

Shameless lack of ethics. I don't know why I bother to be shocked any more.

I think they coached them on having their data blocked due to GDPR. Which is insane unless you know the data will be bad.

Good. Yes, it's the top story for me now too. When I looked earlier that was a story on Gaza.

Perhaps it was still indexing when I looked, given it's a new story.

I'd like to see them state that these drugs were never approved for this use and that the adult clinics refused to supply their data to Cass.

Seconded, @AlisonDonut and @theilltemperedqueenofspacetime

Yes, this!

The NHS adult gender services holds data that tracks 9,000 young people from the youth service. Some argue that this should be scrutinised before any trial goes ahead as it could provide evidence on, among other things, the potential risks of taking puberty blockers.

Until I saw your post I wondered whether I imagined it, but, I am sure I heard someone from TransActual (?) actually gloating about how they were able to prevent Cass accessing these data, using 'patient confidentiality'. Infuriating.

How on earth would this get through ethics? How would you measure an outcome? Child A has poor brain development and crumbling bones, but is 2% happier than five years ago?

Its on 'indepth'.

-and its the top (most recent) story on the InDepth front page.

'BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think - you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.'

I always assumed that was the plan. Get the activists to justify their case in a context based on science and not emotional blackmail, ie reversing the burden of proof that had held sway for more than a decade.

I don't know why Tavistock data isn't included; most of the girls found their mental health worsened.

There's never any explanation given as to why a treatment designed to make males smaller, weaker and pass as women more easily as adults is being applied to female children.

Any trial with it's head screwed on would need to separate the groups by sex.

Trans men who have been through puberty and then take loads of testosterone pass fairly well, so even proponents of transitioning can't justify giving these drugs to girls - yet we do.

More great points BonfireLady.

For me it's the front page of the app - but iirc I clicked the things I wanted to see and those I didn't a while ago.

However- sometimes a piece like this then leads to more coverage elsewhere?

There bloody well needs to be.

Ultimately the sources on the "pro" side in that piece are not UK based, are not used by NICE, use vague technical terms such as "stuff" and a male primary teacher turned academic (and a few other things by the looks of it.)

Great points.

I feel it's significant that she's been given / written this piece rather than any other department.

Me too. The Health team has been abysmal on it. I remember a comment from Cath Leng on X where she said that it's important to consider who the editors are in every news team.

To us viewers, the BBC is one entity. Logically Deborah Turness has full oversight over news. But peel back the layers and that's just not true at all. It's a conglomerate of lots of different teams, all working independently of each other. Whilst that should give better impartiality, it obviously has risk. Each editorial chain will decide what's newsworthy and what's not. The Health team has recently written a few things about what's been happening since Cass but it always lacks any curiosity or depth. It comes across as a box ticking exercise, to report a basic level of information but no more. The Identity team continuously overshadows it with all the puff pieces.

This feels like something was done to step aside from the current structure because the current structure wouldn't have surfaced it.

Although it's great that they've done it...... where is it?! I've just had a look on their BBC Indepth website and can't see it on the front page, or in Health. I remember Hannah Barnes saying on Newsnight that her investigations in to the Tavistock were similarly unpromoted. Presumably the silo that is BBC Indepth also has its own editorial control on where it puts articles that are under its brand.

I particularly like the black and white one at the end of the article. It's got that level of class that Waitrose and John Lewis achieved when celebrating inclusion for everyone who might fly through Málaga. Like Ruby, seen here in an official John Lewis publication holding what looks like a great gift for Christmas for anyone so inclined.
#BringYourWholeSelfToWork.

Don't worry Mr Streeting, the trials have already been done - you can easily just follow up on all the kids treated by the Tavistock clinic can't you? Can't you?!