Puberty Blocker Trial Paused

I hear you, and I don't think we're as far apart as it might seem.
I agree that psychological support should be the first line of response, and that it should be well funded and readily available. The current situation where young people wait years for any help at all is failing everyone, regardless of what treatment they eventually need.
On the specific concerns you raise: yes, there are questions about bone density and blockers. The research is ongoing, and monitoring matters. But "preserving IQ" isn't quite accurate to the current evidence. The studies that raised cognitive concerns were small and methodologically limited. I'm not dismissing them, but they're not settled science either.
Here's what I keep coming back to though. You say "speaking therapy which is evidenced to help in distress from dysmorphia." But gender dysphoria isn't the same as body dysmorphia. They present differently, respond to different interventions, and have different trajectories. Treating them as interchangeable leads to approaches that don't actually address what the young person is experiencing.
My daughter had therapy. Lots of it. It helped with her anxiety, her depression, her ability to cope with school. What it didn't do was make her feel at home in her body. That's what blockers, and later hormones, did.
I'm genuinely open to better research, longer assessment periods, more psychological support alongside any medical intervention. What I can't accept is the assumption that the right answer for every young person is no medical pathway ever, regardless of their individual presentation and regardless of how they respond to other approaches.
What would evidence need to show for you to consider that medical intervention might be appropriate for some young people?

She's attracted to boys, which as a trans girl would make her straight, not gay. So "transing away the gay" doesn't fit her.

Isn't a 'trans' girl a boy, and isn't a boy who's attracted to other boys gay and if your child is male and he's sexually attracted to males, then he's homosexual, so how is it not a case of 'transing' the gay away.

To address your two substantive points, the "transing away the gay" theme can be internal to your child as well as externally imposed. Was it explored in therapy? Hopefully, it was.

The second point, similarly. It may not have been a point you deployed, but it may have been a point your child deployed. Again - you may not feel it was said or used in that way.

I'm sure you made what you thought and still think were the best decisions for your child. Some here will say you were reckless or irresponsible in wielding your parental authority. I don't comment. As I've said, I've seen that decision made in my extended family. It hasn't worked out well.

Aside from damage to your child which as a parent you and not we (or I) have to bear the responsibility for, I think that one place we differ is that your support for your child leads you to aims for wider society that you feel will advantage them; but we don't see the advantage to them as worth the wider disadvantage.

I understand your frustration, and I'm not going to pretend my daughter's experience is research. It isn't. Anecdote isn't data. I know that.
But I'd push back on the implication that parents like me are simply ignorant. I've read the research. I've read the criticisms of the research. I've read the Dutch studies and the questions about whether their protocol can be generalised. I've read the concerns about bone density, about the lack of control groups, about the changing demographics of who's presenting.
And since you mention the UK research, I've also read the peer-reviewed critiques of the Cass Review itself. A study published in BMC Medical Research Methodology applied the ROBIS tool (a validated instrument for assessing bias in systematic reviews) and found a high risk of bias in all seven systematic reviews the Cass Review relied upon, driven by unexplained protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, and failure to integrate these limitations into conclusions.
The Yale Law School's critique pointed out that the Cass Review fails to contextualise the evidence for gender-affirming care against the evidence base for other areas of paediatric medicine, where treatments are routinely provided based on similar quality evidence.
The Canadian Paediatric Society stated there are "significant limitations, biases, and inaccuracies within the Review" and that it includes "incorrect citations of evidence and inaccurate, sometimes scientifically disproven speculations."
Multiple international medical bodies have criticised the methodology, including Germany, Austria, and Switzerland's clinical practice guidelines group, which criticised the Cass Review's methodology, conclusions, and lack of transparency.
I made a decision with imperfect information because that was the only kind of information available, and because waiting for perfect information wasn't a cost-free option when my child was in crisis.
What would you say to a parent whose child is in acute distress right now, today? Not in five years when better research might exist. Today. What's the advice? Wait and hope? Therapy that isn't available because CAMHS is overwhelmed? Watch and see what happens?
I'm not asking rhetorically. I genuinely want to know what you think parents in that position should do, practically, with the child in front of them.

I understand the point you are making about a squabble, but without mutually understood definitions how do you establish consent?

I'm not going to argue about definitions. You've made your position clear, and I've made mine. We're not going to agree, and that's fine.
But I will address your two substantive points.
On "transing away the gay": the concern there, as I understand it, is that a young person who is same-sex attracted is encouraged to transition so they can appear heterosexual. A gay boy becomes a "straight girl" to avoid the stigma of being gay. That's a legitimate concern to raise.
But think about what you're actually suggesting in my daughter's case. She was assigned male at birth. She's attracted to boys. If she had simply accepted being a gay boy, she would have been... a gay boy. In 2020s Britain. With a supportive family. There's no particular stigma to escape there, certainly nothing that would justify years of medical treatment and social difficulty. The "transing away the gay" hypothesis requires that transition is the easier path. It isn't. It really isn't.
On your second point: no, I'm not referencing a meme. I'm referencing my daughter, in her bedroom, telling me she didn't want to be here anymore. That happened. It wasn't an argument I deployed to win a debate. It was a Tuesday evening in my house.
I understand you're sceptical of parents who report these things. I understand the concern that distress gets weaponised to shut down questions. But I'm not asking you to make policy based on my daughter's experience. I'm asking you to accept that she exists, that her distress was real, and that I made the best decision I could with the child in front of me.

Your definition is only your definition. You are not entitled to decide that is the only definition available for the rest of the world

I'm not going to argue about definitions. You've made your position clear, and I've made mine. We're not going to agree, and that's fine.
But I will address your two substantive points.
On "transing away the gay": the concern there, as I understand it, is that a young person who is same-sex attracted is encouraged to transition so they can appear heterosexual. A gay boy becomes a "straight girl" to avoid the stigma of being gay. That's a legitimate concern to raise.
But think about what you're actually suggesting in my daughter's case. She was assigned male at birth. She's attracted to boys. If she had simply accepted being a gay boy, she would have been... a gay boy. In 2020s Britain. With a supportive family. There's no particular stigma to escape there, certainly nothing that would justify years of medical treatment and social difficulty. The "transing away the gay" hypothesis requires that transition is the easier path. It isn't. It really isn't.
On your second point: no, I'm not referencing a meme. I'm referencing my daughter, in her bedroom, telling me she didn't want to be here anymore. That happened. It wasn't an argument I deployed to win a debate. It was a Tuesday evening in my house.
I understand you're sceptical of parents who report these things. I understand the concern that distress gets weaponised to shut down questions. But I'm not asking you to make policy based on my daughter's experience. I'm asking you to accept that she exists, that her distress was real, and that I made the best decision I could with the child in front of me.

I understand your frustration, and I'm not going to pretend my daughter's experience is research. It isn't. Anecdote isn't data. I know that.
But I'd push back on the implication that parents like me are simply ignorant. I've read the research. I've read the criticisms of the research. I've read the Dutch studies and the questions about whether their protocol can be generalised. I've read the concerns about bone density, about the lack of control groups, about the changing demographics of who's presenting.
And since you mention the UK research, I've also read the peer-reviewed critiques of the Cass Review itself. A study published in BMC Medical Research Methodology applied the ROBIS tool (a validated instrument for assessing bias in systematic reviews) and found a high risk of bias in all seven systematic reviews the Cass Review relied upon, driven by unexplained protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, and failure to integrate these limitations into conclusions.
The Yale Law School's critique pointed out that the Cass Review fails to contextualise the evidence for gender-affirming care against the evidence base for other areas of paediatric medicine, where treatments are routinely provided based on similar quality evidence.
The Canadian Paediatric Society stated there are "significant limitations, biases, and inaccuracies within the Review" and that it includes "incorrect citations of evidence and inaccurate, sometimes scientifically disproven speculations."
Multiple international medical bodies have criticised the methodology, including Germany, Austria, and Switzerland's clinical practice guidelines group, which criticised the Cass Review's methodology, conclusions, and lack of transparency.
I made a decision with imperfect information because that was the only kind of information available, and because waiting for perfect information wasn't a cost-free option when my child was in crisis.
What would you say to a parent whose child is in acute distress right now, today? Not in five years when better research might exist. Today. What's the advice? Wait and hope? Therapy that isn't available because CAMHS is overwhelmed? Watch and see what happens?
I'm not asking rhetorically. I genuinely want to know what you think parents in that position should do, practically, with the child in front of them.

Before this thread descends into a (hopefully, avoidable) squabble, @sarahd89 most people contributing here will not accept that your son is a woman.

It's not a particularly helpful or interesting chain to argue about definitions.

Either way, your son (whom you refer to as your trans daughter) is attracted to men and boys, so it clearly could be a case of "transing away the gay".

I watched her stop talking about not wanting to exist.

Is this a reference to the "would you rather have a trans [daughter] or a dead [son]" meme?

That's the question I've asked myself more times than I can count.
And I don't have an answer that will satisfy you. I'm not sure I have one that fully satisfies me.
What I can tell you is what I weighed at the time. On one side, a child who was disappearing. Who had stopped eating properly. Who wouldn't leave her room. Who talked about not wanting to be here anymore. Whose distress was so acute that I was afraid to leave her alone.
On the other side, a treatment pathway with risks and unknowns. Professionals who couldn't tell me why, only that the presentation was consistent with the diagnosis and that this was the recommended approach.
I chose to trust the clinicians and to trust what I could see. Maybe that was wrong. I don't know yet. She's 16. The full picture of her life hasn't been written.
But I bristle slightly at the framing of your question, because it implies that doing nothing was the safe option. It wasn't. Doing nothing had its own risks. Children in that level of distress don't simply wait patiently while adults figure out the perfect answer. The suicide rates among untreated gender dysphoric youth aren't a myth invented by activists. I was watching my daughter disappear and I made the best decision I could with the information I had.
Was it the right one? I believe so. She's alive. She's happy. She's doing well at school. She talks about the future.
Could I be wrong? Yes. I sit with that possibility. But I also sit with the possibility that if I'd refused treatment, insisted on waiting until we had perfect understanding, she might not be here at all.
How do you weigh those two risks against each other when it's your child?

That's the question I've asked myself more times than I can count.
And I don't have an answer that will satisfy you. I'm not sure I have one that fully satisfies me.
What I can tell you is what I weighed at the time. On one side, a child who was disappearing. Who had stopped eating properly. Who wouldn't leave her room. Who talked about not wanting to be here anymore. Whose distress was so acute that I was afraid to leave her alone.
On the other side, a treatment pathway with risks and unknowns. Professionals who couldn't tell me why, only that the presentation was consistent with the diagnosis and that this was the recommended approach.
I chose to trust the clinicians and to trust what I could see. Maybe that was wrong. I don't know yet. She's 16. The full picture of her life hasn't been written.
But I bristle slightly at the framing of your question, because it implies that doing nothing was the safe option. It wasn't. Doing nothing had its own risks. Children in that level of distress don't simply wait patiently while adults figure out the perfect answer. The suicide rates among untreated gender dysphoric youth aren't a myth invented by activists. I was watching my daughter disappear and I made the best decision I could with the information I had.
Was it the right one? I believe so. She's alive. She's happy. She's doing well at school. She talks about the future.
Could I be wrong? Yes. I sit with that possibility. But I also sit with the possibility that if I'd refused treatment, insisted on waiting until we had perfect understanding, she might not be here at all.
How do you weigh those two risks against each other when it's your child?

What's wrong with the research we've already done in the UK? Why can't we review that before looking at more research.

I'm getting sick of ploppers coming on her and saying puberty blockers are safe because of my teenage (male) child shows this.

It's a complete and absolutely lack of understanding of research to the point that I question how parents never mind kids have the capacity to make adequately informed decisions.

Before this thread descends into a (hopefully, avoidable) squabble, @sarahd89 most people contributing here will not accept that your son is a woman.

It's not a particularly helpful or interesting chain to argue about definitions.

Either way, your son (whom you refer to as your trans daughter) is attracted to men and boys, so it clearly could be a case of "transing away the gay".

I watched her stop talking about not wanting to exist.

Is this a reference to the "would you rather have a trans [daughter] or a dead [son]" meme?

Not really, no. People don't prescribe lifelong medication that can make a child infertile, have no sexual function, reduce their IQ, and damage their bones, without any evidence of what they've got wrong with them.

But did they say "your daughter has gender dysphoria because of X"? No. They didn't. And at the time, I didn't push for that answer as hard as perhaps I should have, because I was focused on helping her and she was in so much distress.

But how can you help your child, if you have no idea what's wrong with them?

Your definition is only your definition. You are not entitled to decide that is the only definition available for the rest of the world

I appreciate you laying this out clearly. It helps me understand where you're coming from, and I think some of your points deserve a serious response.
On your first point, about clearer guidelines for who would benefit from medical intervention, I agree. Better assessment protocols would help everyone. The difficulty is that human beings don't always fit neatly into diagnostic categories, and what looks obvious in retrospect isn't always clear at the time. But yes, better tools for distinguishing different presentations would help.
On your second point, about long-term evidence, this is where I have some frustration with how the debate is framed. The Dutch studies followed patients into adulthood and showed sustained benefit. More recent research from the Netherlands and other countries with established gender clinics has continued to show positive outcomes for carefully assessed patients. It's not perfect, and the population presenting has changed, but it's not true that there's zero long-term evidence. Calling for more research is reasonable. Using "we need more research" to mean "stop all treatment while we wait decades" is a different thing entirely. We don't apply that standard elsewhere in medicine.
On your third point, about legal sex, I think this is a separate question from whether medical treatment helps individuals. Making access to healthcare contingent on resolving political disputes puts young people in the middle of an adult fight they didn't start.
On your fourth point, about the increase in numbers, I think multiple things can be true simultaneously. Greater awareness means more people come forward. Social influence likely plays a role for some. Some who present today wouldn't have met older criteria. But the young people who transitioned decades ago and are now living ordinary adult lives complicate a narrative that this is simply a social contagion that will pass.

Your definition is only your definition. You are not entitled to decide that is the only definition available for the rest of the world