Clinics forced to share data on children who took PBs .. at last

No these are the facts as you'd know if you really had gender dysphoria as a child/teen in the 70s and 80s.
The lawsuits are already beginning to come to crts but we haven't reached the point where the high numbers who were transitioned over the last 5+ years are 5-10 years post competition of their transaction. But let's be honest most wont have the financial resources to sue and even fewer will have the mental fortitude to see the legal process through to the end.
However we dont measure success and failure/harm by lawsuits we use medical data the type of data thats going to come out now and we will see what the rates of osteoporosis and osteopinea are vs the same age and sexed groups who didn't have puberty blockers and/or cross sex hormones, same for vascular diseases, heart disease, stroke, cancer and rates of infertility aswell as any as yet unknown physical harms. We will also see how their mental health has faired compared to other calms patients and rates of early onset dementia.
For someone who claims to care about trans children im surprised that you aren't jumping for joy at the prospect of this data coming out as if you're correct about the numbers of happy healthy trans adults who had puberty blockers and cross sex hormones then the data will show that on every metric and nobody will be able to deny it and puberty blockers can be given to any child who wants them surely that would be a good thing from your point of view and if not why not?

Edited due to fat thumbs

Hold the champagne! The Times article is misleading. Adult Gender Identity Clinics are not being forced to share any information right now - and might never be.

“The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2026” is enabling, not prescriptive, does not require sharing of information and ethical approval for the study has not yet been granted.

Once approval has been granted then, depending on timing, it will be up to NHS England or the DHSC and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to male sure that the data is actually shared.

Data Linkage Study
Statement made on 26 February 2026
Statement UIN HCWS1369

Statement made by
Wes Streeting
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Labour

Today, I have laid “The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2026” in Parliament. The Order will come into force on 20 March 2026.

This government has always made clear that anyone accessing gender services deserves high quality, evidence-based care and support. Laying this order will facilitate delivery of the data linkage study and is another step to achieving our manifesto commitment to implement recommendations of the independent Cass Review.

The study was planned to take place during the lifespan of the Cass Review, and a statutory instrument was brought forward in 2022 to protect those disclosing protected information for the study. However, it is well documented that some clinics did not share data to allow the study to commence and the study was therefore not completed as planned. Further to this, it is the government's view that the 2022 order now needs to be updated to sufficiently protect those who will now be sharing information for the purposes of the study.

This Order will revoke the 2022 order and will ensure that information that may otherwise be protected under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 can be lawfully disclosed for the specific purpose of the data linkage study. This Order makes technical changes to reflect that NHS England is now delivering the study, that the study is being completed as a recommendation (rather than during the lifetime) of the “Cass Review”, and to update the list of organisations contributing to the study.

The data linkage study is a retrospective study based on an analysis of routine data collected for a cohort of adults who, as children, were referred into a former model of NHS gender care, the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). The study requires no active patient participation and instead relies on an analysis of information already held within health records and other nationally held databases. The study aims to learn more about the needs of individuals referred to GIDS, their healthcare experience, and associations identifiable in the data which may tell us more about the intermediate outcomes for this cohort.

Since assuming responsibility for the data linkage study, NHS England has taken time to undertake due diligence work on the data sources critical to the study, and to work with organisations to refine the planned approach to data sharing. Some small but important improvements have been proposed in the study design that will better support the collaboration of organisations on whom the study team will be reliant for data, including adult gender clinics. It is my clear expectation that all relevant organisations will now provide the data required to complete this study.

Alongside the laying of this Order, updated data linkage study research approvals are also in progress. As with usual research practice, the finalised data linkage study protocol will be made public once independent research and ethical approvals have been appropriately secured, at which point the study can begin.

We are determined to continue our work to improve the lives and healthcare of transgender people in this country. We will continue to implement the recommendations of the Cass Review.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-02-26/hcws1369

The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2026

Statutory Instruments

2026 No. 173
GENDER RECOGNITION, ENGLAND

The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2026
Made 25th February 2026
Laid before Parliament 26th February 2026
Coming into force 20th March 2026
The Secretary of State makes this Order in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 22(5) and (7) and 24(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004(1).

Citation, commencement, expiry, extent and application

1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2026 and shall come into force on 20th March 2026.

(2) This Order ceases to have effect at the end of 20th March 2029.

(3) This Order—

(a)extends to England and Wales, and

(b)applies in relation to England only.

Disclosure for the purposes of the data linkage study

2.—(1) It is not an offence under section 22(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 for an authorised person to disclose protected information to another authorised person where the disclosure is—

(a) made by and to an authorised person in England, and

(b) for the purposes of facilitating, assisting with or undertaking the data linkage study.

(2) In this article—

(a) an “authorised person” is a person employed by or authorised in writing to act on behalf of a body listed in the Schedule;

(b) “GIDS” means Gender Identity Development Service formerly operated by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust(2);

(c) “data linkage study” means the observational study, originally commissioned for the purposes of the independent review into gender identity services for children and young people(3). The study links and analyses GIDS data, adult gender clinic data, and other nationally available healthcare data, in relation to any individual who was—

(i) referred to the GIDS, and

(ii) below the age of 18 at the time of their referral.

Revocation and savings

3.—(1) The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2022 (“the 2022 Order”)(4) is revoked.

(2) Despite the revocation in paragraph (1) the 2022 Order continues to have effect in relation to a person who disclosed information in accordance with that Order.

Wes Streeting Secretary of StateDepartment of Health and Social Care
25th February 2026

Article 2(2)
Schedule
Authorised persons

Chelsea and Westminster Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust(5)

Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear National Health Service Foundation Trust(6)

Devon Partnership National Health Service Trust(7)

GTD Healthcare Limited(8)

LGBT Foundation Ltd(9)

NHS England(10)

Leeds and York Partnership National Health Service Foundation Trust(11)

Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust(12)

Mersey Care National Health Service Foundation Trust(13)

Northamptonshire Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust(14)

Nottinghamshire Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust(15)

Sheffield Health Partnership University National Health Service Foundation Trust(16)

Tavistock and Portman National Health Service Foundation Trust(17)

University College London Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust(18)

The Department of Health and Social Care

Explanatory Note
(This note is not part of the Order)

Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the Act”) provides that it is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person. This Order prescribes circumstances where disclosure of protected information will not amount to an offence under the Act.

Section 22(2) of the Act defines protected information as information relating to a person who has applied for a gender recognition certificate under the Act, and which concerns that application (or a subsequent application by them), or their gender prior to being granted a full gender recognition certificate. Section 22(4) sets out certain circumstances where disclosure of protected information does not constitute an offence.

This Order provides for an additional circumstance where the disclosure of protected information does not constitute an offence. Article 2(1) provides that this is where protected information is disclosed between authorised persons for the purposes of facilitating, assisting or undertaking research for the purposes of the data linkage study. To benefit from the exception, both the authorised person disclosing the information and the authorised person receiving it must be in England when the disclosure is made. Article 2(2) provides the definitions of authorised person, GIDS and the data linkage study.

Article 3 revokes the Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2022.

A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/173/made

PDF version:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/173/made/data.pdf

Wes Streeting said on 26 Feb: "This Order makes technical changes to reflect that NHS England is now delivering the study,"

However, NHS England is being abolished and functions will be moved to the DHSC, ie. responsible to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, currently Wes Streeting.

Oral statement to Parliament
NHS England: Health and Social Care Secretary's statement
The Health and Social Care Secretary made a statement to the House of Commons on plans to abolish NHS England.
From:
Department of Health and Social Care and The Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP
Published
13 March 2025

"Work has already begun to strip out the duplication between the 2 organisations and bring many of NHS England’s functions into the department.

NHS England will have a much clearer focus over this transformation period.

It will be in charge of holding local providers to account for the outcomes that really matter, cutting waiting times and managing their finances responsibly."

"Over the next 2 years, NHS England will be brought into the department entirely."

"Today, we are abolishing the biggest quango in the world."

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nhs-england-health-and-social-care-secretarys-statement

These are your beliefs.

Data thus far has not produced those 1000s of families demanding their pound of skin resulting from the Tavistock and clinicians.

Allowing for a bunch of nuance, yes. Using the sex realist definition of gametes, humans cannot at this time, change their gametes or the systems developed prior to birth to support said gametes.

My understanding of sex and the presence of gender (yes, it is in the room with us right now!) extends beyond gametes. Discussing this with any nuance or expectation of good will is impossible in this space.

I do believe any anonymised data on trans treatment in childhood and adolescence is valuable. The reasonable person in me guesses that it will be judged to be inadequate or unrepresentative if it does not align with sex realist beliefs. I also expect sex realists to slice the data in very unrealistic and narrow contexts to manufacture outcomes not actually present.

Today, there is only unrelenting hate waiting for anyone in the UK who outs themselves as a person with a trans childhood. Hearing anything directly in the voices of people who went through the clinics is exceedingly rare for this reason.

There are other aspects to trans healthcare that sex realists haven't even imagined enough to start arguing about. These factors have existed for longer than I have been alive and are sadly becoming increasingly relevant for youth and young adults finding themselves on decades-long waiting lists.

Yes the data shows that suppressing puberty locks in gender dysphoria whereas the data also shows that allowing a child to go through puberty resolves gender dysphoria in most cases and proper watchful waiting therapy brings the number of people suffering from gender dysphoria down even lower.
What you see as a good thing ie 99% transition rate with puberty blockers actually shows the harm they cause, also it doesn't take into account that its usually around 5-10 years after completion of medical gender transition that people start to detransition of unfortunately commit suicide.
We should be using the treatment that cures the mental health issues not the one that exaspertes the mental health issues and locks them in whilst irrevocably harming their bodies.
You are suffering from conformation bias

The majority of ex-trans (detransitioned) people started treatment as adults. They, as far as I know, were not found to be mentally incompetent at any time in their lives, so they had both the agency and self-awareness to request treatment. Trans treatment until recently was highly roadblocked and controlled by the medical establishment, which meant they would have had to have been other-worldly insistent in their desire for treatment.

The data already public show 1000s of enumerated trans people, hundreds who received treatment, hundreds who didn't receive treatment and a handful who state their treatment was a mistake.

The data already show more than 99% of children and adolescents who begin blockers request gender-appropriate HRT.

The data will show what the data show.

No one expects sex realists to change their beliefs should the data prove that people experience overwhelming satisfaction and live happy lives post-transition. Sex realist beliefs aren't based in science or data,

So called trans health care takes a healthy body and turns it into a disabled body that requires constant medical intervention for the rest of its life. In what way is that health care instead of medical malpractice?

Thank you for taking the time to write that answer. I had to read it a couple of times but I think you are saying that human beings can't actually change sex. However, you do believe that people can alter their bodies to look not-male, not-female, as-male, as-female, or something inbetween.

Is that right? If it is, I'm not sure how "sex realism" stops you holding this belief, particularly because your belief appears to incorporate the immutability of sex.

However, to bring everything back to the thread..... Presumably you agree that it's helpful for the anonymised data of everyone who has taken puberty blockers at GIDS to be studied, so that any future gender clinic patients can benefit from this research? Or to put it another way, why should it not be studied?

Yes it does so does affirmation therapy.
If you were really a child with a diagnosis of body dismorphia disorder (as gender dysphoria was called then) back in the 70s and 80s then you would have received watchful waiting therapy and been 1 of less than 1% of those who suffered it who didn't recover and went on to transition after the age of 18 and then only after you clearly understood that any treatment would not change your sex only the outward appearance of your secondary sex characteristics.
All reaserch has shown a huge increase in females with what is now referred to as gender dysphoria in exactly the same way as anorexia did in the late 90s early 00s due to what we now recognise as a social contagion. It is unsurprising that a 2nd form of body dismorphia is following the same social contagion path as anorexia did, only this one is spreading faster due to the pushing of gender ideology in schools, social media and mainstream media. But like all fads its fading away.
You can argue and spam this thread all you like it won't change the fundamental facts that this has been a mass experiment based on nothing more than ideology and now the results of that ideological experiment will be ferreted out and the true horrors will be shown to the world and then we can protect all children from the dangers of religious zelotry mascarading and science and medicine

Trans medicine is appropriate and successful in treating trans people.

Prove it. The data from these clinics should prove it, shouldn’t it? No need to compromise privacy. All de-identified happy trans adults who were puberty blocked as children. Easy.

As I've said before, sex realists believe trans healthcare is 'destruction' and 'mutilation.' Thankfully medical providers do not share your sex realist morality.

Trans medicine is appropriate and successful in treating trans people.

Perhaps you could tell that to all the permanently offended transpeople who keep insisting that we use wrong sexed pronouns for them and threaten violence if we don't.
Oh and while you're at it could you perhaps point out that death and rape threats make your side look even worse

So a person can only be an expert in treatment they have received? 🤣 That means you can have no opinion on the relevance of puberty blockers then, doesn’t it?

It’s the basics of science research. If a medical intervention works, then research will demonstrate that. If you’re so confident that puberty blockers work for kids, surely you’d support releasing the data that will demonstrate that in glowing terms?

The function of medicine is to heal injured and sick bodies not to take health bodies and destroy them with puberty suppressing drugs, cross sex hormones and mutilating surgeries.
What you are advocating is the antithesis of medicine. Remember the hipocatic oath first do no harm

your statement doesn't provide your qualifications for having an opinion on the medical care received by someone who is not you.

None of that waffle proves that children benefit from being puberty blocked.

My belief is human beings can and do andromorphically and gynomorphically affect our physiology. The changes are largely dependent on the age when medical treatment begins. 'Beautifying' plastic surgery and 'looksmaxxing' guys prove this can also occur in alignment within the birth sex of the individual.

These biological changes can (but not always) calm intense personal discomfort with one's sex and also (sometimes, but not always) facilitate participation in life with a bimodal sex-based form that can be agreeable. Some people desire to not have a sex-based form that sits too far in either direction.

Humans aren't clownfish. Trans people have existed in whatever cultural form they were allowed for thousands of years. People have been welcomed or shunned in society as not-male and not-female, or as-male and as-female, or many ways inbetween.

Body modification was sometimes a part of that existence. In the early 1900s, trans medicine began to more scientifically address trans health and wellbeing. Not all experiences were helpful or positive. Trans medicine has improved in the more than forty years since I've transitioned. Medicine will continue to improve.

All of what I have just said is either impossible at best or harmful at worst under sex realism.

But Cass was a review of all of the available, scientifically robust evidence. It's not like Cass says X but someone else says Y. Cass systematically reviewed all the data and drew conclusions based on that.

I think if those who transition live happy healthy lives afterwards, it would be very helpful for the clinics to release the data which shows this. The concerns expressed here about bone health, incontinence and infertility are real concerns. If they are needless ones, the data release would help and if there are harms being caused surely you would prefer people to be aware of this to prevent further harm?

I actually agree with you that "gender critical" is a bit of a meh term. I never use it to describe myself.

I googled "what is a sex realist?" so I assume you and I both got something similar as a result. This was it:

Someone who asserts that human beings are fundamentally divided into two distinct, biological, and immutable sexes—male and female

Are you saying there are more than two sexes? Or that it's possible for human beings to actually change sex, like a clownfish can?

Agreed - the lack of data collection / analysis is unforgivable.
What is notable is the number of self invested adults - mainly men but some women - who try (often successfully) to influence what happens to vulnerable children. Their negative impact on somewhere like GIDs has been detailed (see Hannah Barnes, Time to Think). The worry is the NHS is politically very weak in terms of identifying this and protecting children and it's a worry that the new centres in Children's hospitals may be as easily influenced.

It should be a pre-requisite to acknowledge that biological sex will never change before any individual has access to so-called gender affirming care. It should also be a pre-requisite to acknowledge that an individual’s decision to choose GAC does not impose any obligations on others.

Edit: Duplicated

Would you like to read the title of the thread?

We are thread realists too. HTH.

The presence of puberty blockers doesn't change the status or condition of trans children.