Letter to NHS England and Wes Streeting about puberty blockers trial

This doesn’t make any sense. You can’t advocate for no clinical trial and complain about unproven interventions at the same time.

@Igneococcus that is a powerful article about the latest position from independent medical researchers.

I think this is also why the idea that children will kills themselves without PB was pushed so hard. These drugs are really harmful And the damage they do is weel understood and consistent across all cohorts. If they are being used to manage prostate cancer or endometriosis severe enough to cause bowel and kidney damage, then they are the lesser of two evils.

But in this cohort, where disease is absent? They have to proactively attach a story of harm to not using them otherwise there is simply no way to justify it.

Thanks to @LonginesPrime I’ve looked up the debate.

For the record there were two pieces of research

Summary
https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pb-0055/

Summary https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pb-0053/

Full report
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PB-0055/POST-PB-0055.pdf

full report https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PB-0053/POST-PB-0053.pdf

plus the Hansard record
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-04-30/debates/BDD8D9D9-05C9-44CB-A778-817BFFE10D77/GenderIncongruencePubertySuppressingHormones

LonginesPrime · Today 02:26

There was an interesting (albeit short) parliamentary debate on the proposed puberty blocker trial yesterday, which asked some interesting questions, including the following:

That's an excellent piece, I wonder how much coverage it's likely to get? It's certainly well researched and thought out, with all the most pertinent questions.

No, no discussion has developed because that would require gender clinicians to be circumspect about what they do and think that not giving puberty blockers might be an option. They only use the “prevent a future mastectomy” line because they have to come up with something to justify given them to borderline pubescent girls that disguises the “they’ve declared a male gender identity and that enough” real reason.

Wow so in 2009 only 51 children, 2/3rds male, were referred to GIDs. Research was watchful waiting saw 67-90% desisted after puberty. The tiny number left were the ones who considered transition.

I have always believed there was a tiny core of children/adults with gender incongruence/dysphoria who had existed for decades. This group still exists but since 2010 they have been swamped and forgotten by completely new cohorts of GI believers, social contagion of ROGD and Malaga airport devotees.

How much damage has been done in the last 15 years.

There was an interesting (albeit short) parliamentary debate on the proposed puberty blocker trial yesterday, which asked some interesting questions, including the following:

Can there ever be a situation where it is ethical to run such a trial when the harms could be significant? It is important to remember that the children who would participate in this trial are physically healthy children who stand to have worse health by the end of it. This trial is in no way similar to a clinical trial for a cancer drug, where the patient is seriously unwell at the beginning of the trial.

Secondly, approximately 9,000 children and young people were treated by GIDS over the years, which provides a plentiful supply of data about the long-term outcomes for those who took puberty blockers and those who did not. Would the Minister please clarify matters and explain why a new trial is needed, given this abundance of data? Will she please provide an update on the exercise that is currently under way to obtain more data?

Thirdly, the current trial only proposes to look at outcomes over a two-year period. To put that into context, a child who starts puberty blockers at the age of 13 will only have their outcomes followed and assessed until the age of 15. That is not long enough to understand medium and long-term outcomes. A positive result for a 15-year-old might look very different for a 25-year-old, when physical health, sexual function and fertility are likely to be more important and relevant to them than when they were 15. Does the Minister agree that two years is not a sufficient timeframe to properly evaluate the impact of puberty blockers on physical and mental health? If this trial goes ahead, will she commit to funding and ensuring that there is long-term follow-up of these children into adulthood?

Fourthly, how many children will the trial be limited to, and what criteria will be used to determine which children are eligible and which are not? Is it possible that all eligible children will be included and prescribed puberty blockers as part of the trial? How many children in total does the Minister expect to take part in the trial over its duration? How will the trial establish an appropriate control group?

Fifthly, given that gender nonconformity sometimes correlates with same-sex attraction in adulthood, how will the trial safeguard those children who may simply be uncomfortable with their sexuality rather than experiencing true gender distress?

Sixthly, given the high rates of progression to cross-sex hormones following puberty blockers, will only children who agree not to progress to cross-sex hormones be accepted on to the trial, so that the impact of the puberty blockers on outcomes can be seen in isolation? If the answer is no, given the corresponding likelihood of impaired sexual function and loss of fertility, which are monumental ramifications, how will the children taking part in the trial be able to give consent?

Finally, will the Minister please provide details of other trials that have been approved for paediatric medical interventions with equivalent or similar diagnostic uncertainty, to reassure the public that moving forward with a trial in this situation has precedent?

Wow so in 2009 only 51 children, 2/3rds male, were referred to GIDs. Research was watchful waiting saw 67-90% desisted after puberty. The tiny number left were the ones who considered transition.

I have always believed there was a tiny core of children/adults with gender incongruence/dysphoria who had existed for decades. This group still exists but since 2010 they have been swamped and forgotten by completely new cohorts of GI believers, social contagion of ROGD and Malaga airport devotees.

How much damage has been done in the last 15 years.

So we are now finally close to say that a mastectomy is a procedure that carries risks and is better avoided? Has a discussion developed weighting the risks of PBs against the ones of a mastectomy?

Thanks to @LonginesPrime I’ve looked up the debate.

For the record there were two pieces of research

Summary
https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pb-0055/

Summary https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pb-0053/

Full report
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PB-0055/POST-PB-0055.pdf

full report https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PB-0053/POST-PB-0053.pdf

plus the Hansard record
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-04-30/debates/BDD8D9D9-05C9-44CB-A778-817BFFE10D77/GenderIncongruencePubertySuppressingHormones

I thought it was men who liked the idea of a 16yo who looks 12

There was an interesting (albeit short) parliamentary debate on the proposed puberty blocker trial yesterday, which asked some interesting questions, including the following:

Can there ever be a situation where it is ethical to run such a trial when the harms could be significant? It is important to remember that the children who would participate in this trial are physically healthy children who stand to have worse health by the end of it. This trial is in no way similar to a clinical trial for a cancer drug, where the patient is seriously unwell at the beginning of the trial.

Secondly, approximately 9,000 children and young people were treated by GIDS over the years, which provides a plentiful supply of data about the long-term outcomes for those who took puberty blockers and those who did not. Would the Minister please clarify matters and explain why a new trial is needed, given this abundance of data? Will she please provide an update on the exercise that is currently under way to obtain more data?

Thirdly, the current trial only proposes to look at outcomes over a two-year period. To put that into context, a child who starts puberty blockers at the age of 13 will only have their outcomes followed and assessed until the age of 15. That is not long enough to understand medium and long-term outcomes. A positive result for a 15-year-old might look very different for a 25-year-old, when physical health, sexual function and fertility are likely to be more important and relevant to them than when they were 15. Does the Minister agree that two years is not a sufficient timeframe to properly evaluate the impact of puberty blockers on physical and mental health? If this trial goes ahead, will she commit to funding and ensuring that there is long-term follow-up of these children into adulthood?

Fourthly, how many children will the trial be limited to, and what criteria will be used to determine which children are eligible and which are not? Is it possible that all eligible children will be included and prescribed puberty blockers as part of the trial? How many children in total does the Minister expect to take part in the trial over its duration? How will the trial establish an appropriate control group?

Fifthly, given that gender nonconformity sometimes correlates with same-sex attraction in adulthood, how will the trial safeguard those children who may simply be uncomfortable with their sexuality rather than experiencing true gender distress?

Sixthly, given the high rates of progression to cross-sex hormones following puberty blockers, will only children who agree not to progress to cross-sex hormones be accepted on to the trial, so that the impact of the puberty blockers on outcomes can be seen in isolation? If the answer is no, given the corresponding likelihood of impaired sexual function and loss of fertility, which are monumental ramifications, how will the children taking part in the trial be able to give consent?

Finally, will the Minister please provide details of other trials that have been approved for paediatric medical interventions with equivalent or similar diagnostic uncertainty, to reassure the public that moving forward with a trial in this situation has precedent?

This is a very revealing comment. Not referring to Poised but this argument about children has been driven by adults men who've transitioned in mid life and don't pass. They are determined to enforce the notion that children must have early access to pbs in order to pass.
Hence the tsunami of children being give these untested drugs and the catastrophic outcomes for them.

It's immoral and unethical.

Why has no medical/scientific institution that has prescribed PB in the past not got (or is not prepared to publish) longitudinal data of the impact of PB? There should be no need for a further trial as globally many children have been prescribed PB.

If the risk of harm was so high there wouldn’t need to be a trial. My understanding of the trial was that it’s looking at outcomes of the child treated with PB.

Even though access to single sex spaces has been returned to birth sex, someone who passes is still going to have a much easier time in life than someone who doesn’t and will experience less discomfort. Having protection under the Equality Act, doesn’t mean discrimination still isn’t common.

This doesn’t make any sense. You can’t advocate for no clinical trial and complain about unproven interventions at the same time.