Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Pathways Puberty Blocker Trial - High Court Proceedings start 27th July

273 replies

FarriersGirl · 25/07/2026 13:36

James Esses, alongside the Bayswater Support Group and Keira Bell, is involved in a High Court hearing beginning on July 27, 2026, seeking an emergency injunction and permission for a judicial review regarding the "Pathways" puberty-blocker trial. The JR itself is likely to be heard in the autumn if it gets the go ahead.

Although we have had quite a few threads discussing the Pathways trial more generally I thought it would be useful to have one for the court case. I'm not sure if we will have access to watch/listen as the representative from the Bayswater Group has been granted anonymity.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
Original poster
FarriersGirl · 31/07/2026 14:29

Hopefully this will be reported in the wider media and maybe get some attention. I believe Nick Wallis is presenting on Times Radio tomorrow morning so perhaps it will be covered there.

OP posts:
Original poster
FarriersGirl · 31/07/2026 14:26

From X

Application is refused. Application for Interim Relief is refused.

J is there going to be an application to appeal
[claimant barrister] No intention to make an urgent application to appeal in the way of interim relief. If we do appeal the JR decision it will be done within the usual 7 days.

My note - so there we have it establishment backing the establishment.

OP posts:
theilltemperedmonster · 31/07/2026 14:23

So the dangerous experiment can go ahead, because the people previously doing the experimenting think it's a good idea?

The pharmaceutical companies who owned the product licences would not, I think, have ever got ethics panel approval to do this trial originally. Problem built up because off-label prescribing and no pushback.

How will this ever be solved?

Original poster
FarriersGirl · 31/07/2026 14:23

From X

Even if one or more of the grounds had succeeded. Interim Relief to stop the trial would not be given.

"The harm that would be done to the public interest and the interests of child participants... firmly outweighs any harm which might accrue to trial participants."

OP posts:
MyDogClive · 31/07/2026 14:23

I started to write oh bugger, but it seems inappropriate. This is about the dozens of children whose health will be ruined by state sanctioned chemical poisons - I can’t call it treatment - because the juggernaut wasn’t stopped. I’m sad and worried, not just angry.

I also want to acknowledge what a good thing JE and KB have done in trying to get it stopped.

Original poster
FarriersGirl · 31/07/2026 14:21

From X

After modifications to the trial it re-met in June this year and reapproved the trial.

If regulator's decision is challenged on rationality grounds court must be v careful. Court must see if the proper lawful processes have been executed.

C's challenged decision to go ahead with the trial on 5 grounds. None have a realistic prospect of success.

  1. Issue of what would happen to children having concluded the trial. That has been taken into account.
  2. HRA failure to put 3rd party concerns to the REC before the Sep 2025 meeting was rational. It's decision to do so before the REC in June was also rational.
  3. Lack of transparency. The REC did publish an accurate summary. As a result of this court action it has the details. As a result of this judgment so now does the public.
  4. Rationality: it was a pragmatic trial. Whether to approve a trial of this purpose was for the MHRA and HRA.
  5. MHRA is only required to give reasons for the trial in some circs. C's now have the MHRAs reasons anyway and now the public.
OP posts:
Kucinghitam · 31/07/2026 14:21

I'm disappointed but not really surprised.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 31/07/2026 14:18

I absolutely cannot fucking believe this. Absolutely awful

turkeyboots · 31/07/2026 14:18

Sad, but not surprised. Standing for JRs is very strictly limited and no judge is going to make case law that would expand it in the way this one could have.
There has to be a better way to tackle these thing legally than JR. The Hampstead Heath pools failed in the same way didn't it?

DrBlackbird · 31/07/2026 14:16

Because the totally captured health professionals say it’s needed FFS.

Original poster
FarriersGirl · 31/07/2026 14:15

From X
Reasons: trial was designed with "conspicuous care". Children will be assessed by specialist gender services. In each case the clinicians had a reasonable prospect of benefitting from the trial. There is a secondary independent team who will review the decision to put a child forward for a trial.
The MRHA undertook a rigourous process to assess the trial. It asked a series of qs of the trial sponsors after the pause in MAF hormones. The trial protocol went to a Research Ethics Committee (REC) - it met in September and approved the trial

OP posts:
Original poster
FarriersGirl · 31/07/2026 14:13

Decision - application for JR and interim order BOTH REFUSED.

I'm not surprised although disappointed by this

OP posts:
DrBlackbird · 31/07/2026 14:09

OhBuggerandArse · 31/07/2026 14:09

Application has failed

https://x.com/nickwallis/status/2083177767319785669?s=20

Edited

Oh no!

DrBlackbird · 31/07/2026 14:09

One other thought reading these measured posts. As per a PP’s earlier comment, it’s not only how do we take into account or isolate out societal response influencing the impact of gender dysphoria, it’s the very issue of social contagion. What if these children or their parents had never heard of gender dysphoria or transgenderism? Would any of them have agreed to or want to be part of this trial? I strongly suspect not.

Additionally, matters of mental health and identity distress don't exist in a vacuum - how we as society respond directly influences the impact of it. So lots of focus on this area and validation of the distress, etc., will likely directly lead to an increase in incidence and 'severity' because vulnerable people are being told that they are right to feel this way and that is is the root of their difficulties.

OhBuggerandArse · 31/07/2026 14:09

Application has failed

https://x.com/nickwallis/status/2083177767319785669?s=20

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 31/07/2026 13:59

FarriersGirl · 31/07/2026 13:57

Following Nick on X - he's in court and waiting for it to start.

Hopefully this link will take people to the right place:

https://nitter.net/nickwallis/status/2083173656578924975#m

Original poster
FarriersGirl · 31/07/2026 13:57

Following Nick on X - he's in court and waiting for it to start.

OP posts:
Original poster
FarriersGirl · 31/07/2026 12:08

Very interesting article - thank you Twoloons. I am struck by the fact that there does not seem to be a "critical voice" in the establishment, they all seem certain they are right. This on its own should be ringing alarm bells of group think and wider institutional capture.

OP posts:
TwoLoonsAndASprout · 31/07/2026 11:54

Cantunseeit · 31/07/2026 11:53

That looks interesting, could you (or do you mind if I) post it on the other thread (Netherlands) for more eyeballs?

edited to tag @twoloonsandasprout

Edited

Can do!

Cantunseeit · 31/07/2026 11:53

That looks interesting, could you (or do you mind if I) post it on the other thread (Netherlands) for more eyeballs?

edited to tag @twoloonsandasprout

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 31/07/2026 11:42

SEGM have a report on a recent Acta Paediatrica article (by a Swedish gender psychologist) which basically points out that "gender identity" and "gender incongruence" are undefined terms that shouldn't be used as a basis for medical intervention:

https://nitter.net/segm_ebm/status/2082853108648997110

https://segm.org/gender-identity-conceptual-clarity

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.70686

Sex, Gender and Gender Identity: A Case for Conceptual Clarity

https://segm.org/gender-identity-conceptual-clarity

Cantunseeit · 31/07/2026 11:25

And don’t forget the muttering about there being no upper limit on participation, plus “carve outs” to allow continued use of pbs and CSH in contravention to the bans on both for u-18

KnottyAuty · 31/07/2026 11:19

ProfDrLapwing · 31/07/2026 10:36

Thank you.

This is bang on. As a piece of research it is fatally flawed so is it just a way to treat 200 ‘patients’?

Show quote history

It does look that way…

ProfDrLapwing · 31/07/2026 10:36

Cantunseeit · 31/07/2026 09:25

I’ve just popped this on the Netherlands thread but it probably is more directly relevant to this one. The concept of “Tooth Fairy science” is critical to understanding the claimant’s position IMO

https://genspect.org/the-nhs-puberty-blocker-trial-science-built-on-make-believe/

Thank you.

This is bang on. As a piece of research it is fatally flawed so is it just a way to treat 200 ‘patients’?

MyDogClive · 31/07/2026 10:05

PrettyDamnCosmic · 30/07/2026 11:03

My objection to any trial of PBs has always been that it's impossible for either children or parents to give informed consent but that doesn't appear to have been raised as an issue.

This. Every single time.

The drugs will probably harm you, we just don’t know how much and for how long. And they may bring perceived benefits, but we can’t objectively measure these or tell you how long they will last. We also have zero evidence that any benefits are better than less harmful interventions. Please sign here.