Hilary Cass sent a document to every single MP and Peer, justifying and defending the puberty blockers trial

I'm going to look for the definition now.

Good luck!

Next section

1.2.2 Puberty suppression and changes in care
Over the past two decades, changes in the age of presentation, ratio of male-female birth-registered sex and prevalence of people presenting with gender incongruence have coincided with changes in the available treatment, most notably the use of puberty suppression which had not previously been used for this purpose...Several possible benefits of GnRHa were hypothesised for CYP experiencing gender incongruence. These included reducing feelings of distress with one’s body developing secondary sexual characteristics (body dysmorphia) and related emotional distress and making any subsequent physical transition to the opposite gender more straightforward, potentially with less radical surgery.

Well, that's an outright lie. We all remember the video of Susie Green chuckling with her mother about how her son's penis "didn't have enough material" for the surgeon to do the usual penile inversion to make a fake vagina, and they had to use part of his colon instead. So the surgery is actually more complex and less likely to be satisfactory.

For girls who are now the majority of trans-identified children, the surgery issue is just irrelevant. Puberty blockers are not given until the child has commenced puberty, so girls will have some breast development, meaning that if they want a male-looking chest they will still have to have a mastectomy. What other secondary sexual characteristics are they trying to stop in girls? This medication is totally pointless for them.

You'd think they could have written a research protocol without filling it with lies in the first couple of paragraphs.

a systematic review reported that as few as 0-8% (including 2% of UK youth4) receiving GnRHa subsequently desisted from the treatment and a transitioning pathway. This rate of gender transitioning was substantially higher than those reported from earlier observational studies, prior to the use of GnRHa. This raised concerns about whether the intervention might itself be narrowing rather than increasing perceived choices regarding gender identity.

Some honesty here at least. So why are they doing this if they know it's likely to set those children on an irreversible pathway?

I notice that the first few paragraphs keep repeating the term "gender incongruence", but I haven't seen a definition yet. I'm going to look for the definition now.

So if the trial does run long term, and it would need to be 10-15 years to really get any useful answers, how does this help those who are getting PBs on the black market and in other countries worldwide? The proposed concept on this thread is once it’s done and shown to be a problem it will help put an end to the idea that PBs are good and other countries will then shut down the idea.

So if the long term outcomes are now what we are waiting for, it’s thousands of children who will be harmed by PBs in the interim, not just the few hundred in this study.

Alternatively, there can just be a ban for PBs for still yet to be defined gender reasons and prosecute those who defy this.

OK, I'll go through it and post my comments. You may not like them.

First we're presented with a graph showing the increase in the number of referrals for the non-illness of 'gender incongruence'. They mention the huge increase (which incidentally, and perhaps not coincidentally, began in around 2014 which was when CBBC first showed 'I am Leo', encouraging girls to identify as boys and suggesting that they could change sex). The graphs show that there has been a much greater increase in referrals of girls than boys.

The caption reads:
Figure 1 - The characteristics of young people seeking support in the United Kingdom (UK) have also changed over this time period. This means that the results of studies reporting on earlier cohorts of CYP may not apply to those currently accessing gender services.

So that's interesting. They imply that the results of previous studies might not apply to this cohort. Perhaps partly due to the fact that historically there have been far more male transsexuals than female, but girls now outnumber boys by about 3:1. I wonder if they suggest any reasons for this later in the document or are just stating it as a reason for doing this experiment while ignoring the results of previous studies?

This could be the counterweight part of the trial.

Have you actually tried reading the protocol where they go through all this? You might not like the answers but they do explain what they are doing and why.

So what is this trial actually for, what will it actually show, what is "success" in this context....? And so on.

We don't run trials to establish that children who have had one foot amputated will have difficulty competing in foot-races, after all. It's not needed. And we certainly don't amputate one foot of each of a couple of hundred more children to see if we were right.

Anyway, @noblegiraffe , perhaps you could enlighten us about what the condition is they're trying to treat, why preventing puberty is the most appropriate treatment, and what a positive outcome would look like.

But no matter how many times you post it, it still says:

This application for long-term follow-up will undergo the usual scientific evaluation and will be subject to regulatory approval.

So it's not certain to go ahead.

I’ve linked to it four times on this thread already.

I thought actually posting the relevant bit would help but still no.

Exactly. What on earth is this trial for in the first place? There have always been girls who want to be boys and boys who want to be girls, but it's not possible to change sex, so what is this all about really?

(To answer my own question, it's all about validation for middle-aged transvestites.)

It also says :

This application for long-term follow-up will undergo the usual scientific evaluation and will be subject to regulatory approval.

So it's not certain at the moment.

Link to document so that others don't have to search for it as I did.

Microsoft Word - PATHWAYS Trial Protocol v3.2 18.06.2026 CLEAN

It says in the bit I posted from the protocol that the NIHR has agreed to fund the extension study?

The noise hurts my head.

So did they get more funding?
Because I checked, and at the beginning the funding was covering only the first two years.
https://archive.ph/5oS7Q
I'll try to dig more information when I have time.

No, they have funding for further follow-up and just need approval.

I'm pretty sure the funding is only for the two years. Follow up will be only on NHS records.

Yes and the constant slippery sliding away from the essential questions of "what exactly is being treated?" and "how would we measure success?"

IMO this trial puts more pressure on parents to consent to medicalise their children. [Some] Adults with influence will continue to treat those who refuse as bigots. Of course not all teachers but in my experience there will be plenty that enjoy exerting moral superiority in this way.
**
Parents deserve empathy- they are in a very difficult position.
ETA and I don’t believe parents are being given the information they need to consent

The very existence of this trial will be used by advocates to argue "PBs cannot be that unsafe or the NHS would not permit the trial to proceed", whilst the outright ban at least took that option off the table.

So so many bloody sanctimonious and borderline aggressive educational, therapeutic, and healthcare professionals are fully onboard with the idea of the ‘trans child’. Every parent navigating these dark choppy waters has my full sympathy. It is hard. Not necessarily on the trans issue, but I have decades of experience leading me to approach child related services with great caution.

And I agree that parents will not be given the kind of research that is shared on these threads. Young autistic males I know accessing gender services are told about loss of fertility (do you mind not being able to father children? No, fine then, I’ll prescribe CSHs) but nothing else.

It is my considered opinion that anyone who knew that they would be subjected to MRI scans they otherwise would not have to have, would not volunteer for any trial involving them.

Really? That must be just you as I have had several MRI scans & would happily have more. It's a bit boring is all.

I have been vaguely wondering how you convert someone from something they are not.

At this rate the parents that try and put the kids off will be in jail for 5 years under the 'conversation practices' legislation long after the kids have been through the trial and are then on the cross sex hormones.

They are planning to follow up for more than 2 years.

It is my considered opinion that anyone who knew that they would be subjected to MRI scans they otherwise would not have to have, would not volunteer for any trial involving them.

If this "trial" really intended to dive into the harmful effects of these drugs, they'd be following up for way more than 2 years.

Let alone the fact that they cannot even define the medical condition that is being "treated" so how can they determine whether the benefit outweighs the harms? The condition basically boils down to "child says feels sad because reasons" so the "benefit" can only be "child says feels less sad on magic beans for less than 2 years". [Edit: and all under the constant influence of aforementioned equally invested parents]

In which case we're down to arguing over what level of "less sad" overrides what level of worrying x-ray, blood test, urinalysis, MRI scans.