That puberty blockers should not be promoted for children by any charities or celebrities for children.

[WandaWomblesaurus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68549091.amp

https://archive.ph/hmIvY

Loads of news today about the NHS stopping puberty blockers being given to children who think they are trans. Puberty blockers are sometimes prescribed for children who have precocious puberty, however a narrative that has been pushed by Mermaids, Stonewall and celebrities like India Willoughby and Emma Watson (who gave a large donation to Mermaids) - that puberty blockers are safe and "lifesaving"

WPATH guidelines in the USA which the UK NHS have followed in procedure have had leaked documents and videos showing that they knew that children didn't have the ability to understand the long term effects.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/09/disturbing-leaks-from-us-gender-group-wpath-ring-alarm-bells-in-nhs

https://archive.ph/h0BtF

And a new Finnish Study debunks the idea that children who say they are trans are more suicidal https://archive.ph/h0BtF

However Mermaids, Stonewall and India Willoughby are pushing puberty blockers as safe.

https://x.com/stonewalluk/status/1767603259932361036?s=

https://www.tiktok.com/@mermaidsgenderr*/photo/7345520902936726816?isfrommwebapp=1&senderdevice=mobile&senderrweb_id=7345629783211378209

https://x.com/indiawilloughby/status/1767595379921404151?s=46

AIBU to think that anyone pushing puberty blockers at this point is unethical? And that they should never have been allowed to be given to children who did not need them for precocious puberty where the risks are weighed up against the side effects and they are only used short term?

I'm glad there's also a plan to ban private doctors from handing out puberty blockers, but I don't think it will matter.

Imagine an 18 year old suing for the damage caused and being able to say "The NHS told you it would harm me and you did it anyway"

I imagine their insurers are already changing policies to avoid being the ones doing the paying out.

I'm expecting quite a rush to leave the sinking ship.

So up until the age of 25 I need my parents approval to get medical treatment? I'm well past that age but I think that might cause some wider issues. Unless of course, we raise the age of adulthood to 25 also. So no getting married, voting, having sex , drinking,smoking or joining the army until your mid twenties.

I haven't done the reading that's correct. But I will stand by the only stand I'm taking which is wide ranging decisions on whether a treatment is available shouldn't be made by people who are not experts in the field. If patients are not getting accurate and reliable information on both pros and cons from their provider, that's an issue. But the information needs to be assessed and based in non biased facts.

Here you go

https://www.transgendertrend.com/children-change-minds/ goes through some studies.

Particularly this one.
In this Dutch study they identified 127 children who were referred to the Gender Identity clinic in Amsterdam when they were under the age of 12. They then looked to see if these children were still gender dysphoric by the time they reached adolescence at age 15. 47 (37%) of these children had persisted. However 80 (64%) of children had either desisted (52) or were no longer traceable (28). See Figure 1. Since there is only one Gender Identity clinic for children in Holland it can be assumed that the latter no longer required support and so had also desisted.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Steensma-2013_desistance-rates.pdf

This is not covering the exponential increase of children registering at GIDS and other clinics worldwide. It is expected though that the 64% would be conservative and it would be higher because the study was for 'registered' patients and not covering any that are not registered.

Why do you think the NHS decision wasn’t made by experts?

Can you explain as I’m finding this a disconnect

And we reach the personal insult element of the conversation. Why is it that when someone disagrees on the Internet, it's always reduced to name calling. I've been nothing but respectful of others positions on this thread and yet that's where we land? On your general point - yes. I trust that my car has been built properly by experts, that my house has a roof that won't fall in because it was built by experts. Do you check everything in your life yourself before you engage with it or do you... Trust experts..

I think some posters declaring that young people should be free to make decisions themselves after listening to experts,

Clearly don't feel the experts/clinicians in above studies are "experty enough"

NB part of the entire point is that many kids and young people lack the experience and knowledge to make such "free to be themselves " decisions and have absolutely not one clue of what this means for the future of their body and their relationships

And I don't believe one poster who is saying there are major issues with puberty blockers on this thread is saying 'the decisions should not be made by experts'.

What we are saying to you is, don't take our word for it, go and look at the experts that are saying this is a major fucking issue ! Go and read the statements from each of the countries that I posted up thread and tell us why they are not to be considered experts?

What has led you to keep repeating 'experts' as if what we are posting links to are not 'experts' saying that these drugs should not be used? Honestly? What is it that has stopped you taking a look at the links for yourself? You stated that you have the experience of reading studies and papers, why are you not doing it?

That's the second time you've said beta blockers. We're talking here about a completely different drug, originally developed to treat prostate cancer in men (and IIRC rapidly discontinued for that because the side effects were so ferocious). Then used to treat various gynaecological issues in women, with long-lasting health issues resulting, unfortunately, leading to class actions against the drug companies. Also prescibed for short periods to treat precocious puberty in children, also leading to long-lasting health issues in some, sadly. And in spite of all the foregoing then prescribed to prevent puberty progressing in children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This was sold as a way of giving them time to think about whether they wanted to go onto cross-hormones. In virtually every case the child did proceed to cross-hormones. So it wasn't pressing a pause button, it was virtually guaranteeing that the child would proceed to cross-hormones, and this is not surprising, because the child's brain was not maturing as it should be doing during puberty, so they were mulling this over from a child's perspective, not even an adolescent's.

While I agree that trusting the experts is a good position - this topic reveals that it isn't foolproof either.

The experts here have eventually called it right (NHS). But the 'experts' in the US are still not acting appropriately.

There are many reasons why experts might not be acting in their patients best interests. Political pressure, ideological capture, insufficient scrutiny of evidence, suppression of evidence, fear of loosing their jobs. All of which have played a role here.

It can be hard to row back on a position that's been taken. Scientific 'consensus' has been wrong on plenty of issues in the past.

So I'd suggest valuing expert advice, but with a critical hat on. Read widely. Question what's going on contextually.

And we reach the personal insult element of the conversation.

Not really. It was a (valid, imo) criticism of the expression you used, not an insult. In any case, most of your points are moot once you concede that it is not ok for an 11 year-old to consent to medical decisions whose consequences they cannot possibly fully understand. If an expert is allowing them to do that, the expert is not fit for the job.

I'm saying that society in general deciding - without the level of specific, trained knowledge you have - should not be be making decisions for other people.

By this same rationale, do you think the NHS should have continued to offer thalidomide to pregnant women, on the basis that most of the general public had not read or would not have understood the clinical evidence being presented?

There are some incredibly knowledgeable and accomplished MNers with careers in medicine and science (I’m not one of them) so there’s no need to come on here insinuating that MNers aren’t capable of reading and understanding the science. You speak for yourself (and for me) but not for everyone.

Because I am not a scientist and have difficulty with academic language, I’m happy to leave these decisions to the experts. The experts in this situation are saying that it is not safe to continue to prescribe these drugs for children with gender dysphoria.

Also, they’re puberty blockers not beta blockers. (The latter would probably be safer!)

saying that society in general deciding - without the level of specific, trained knowledge you have - should not be be making decisions for other people.

They aren't. The NHS is, so nothing for you to concern yourself about.

@newyorker74 you can see that the NHS has decided this not us?

Because people are saying that beta blockers

No they aren't. Beta blockers are something totally different. You don't understand any of this, do you?

This is an NHS decision. Who on earth do you think has made the decision?

I'm not calling you names, but I just think phrases like "experts going to expert" is extremely flippant and unserious.

I think if you're advocating for a controversial treatment be available, you could at least inform yourself about it. The use of puberty blockers is not just a medical issue, it's also a very political issue, especially in the context where it seems this is available for political reasons with very poor actual medical evidence underpinning it.

I remember someone else repeatedly confusing beta blockers and puberty blockers on here a while ago. Perhaps it’s the same poster. My knowledge of medicine is very limited but even I know the difference between those two drugs!

Didn't Billy Bragg do just that on Twitter at one point?

We are also saying that experts have been raising the alarm about this issue now for years and being declared hateful and transphobic for doing so. So, do you think that groups who are personally heavily invested in gender identity should be engaged with actively silencing the clinicians who are raising the alarms?

Happy to post a link to a court case where the GIDS senior management actively sought to exclude one of their safeguarding leads who was feeding back to them that there were issues with consent and with the processes. Or you can go and start looking for yourself. Look up Sonia Appleby.

I get the feeling that you have actively dismissed the evidence that has been posted here for some reason. Why?

Oooh that sounds familiar. I think it might be that that I’m remembering!

I will stand by the only stand I'm taking which is wide ranging decisions on whether a treatment is available shouldn't be made by people who are not experts in the field.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that the NHS shouldn't have made the decision that they have made?

Because at this point no one else is making any decisions, are they?

There is a serious disconnect here Arabella.

It seems that this poster is trying to say 'leave it to the experts' because they think we are posting links to randoms on the internet and NOT TO EXPERTS. Or that maybe they think the experts raising the alarms are politically driven, whereas it doesn't take a genius to see with the court cases it is actually the fucking opposite and the ones declaring 'nothing to see here' are the ones politically driven.

The posting seems very disconnected and very much about virtue signalling about a topic that the poster seems to have no fucking idea about, but has decided that posters are posting from ignorance rather than from years of reading and listening and reading some more.

Mind you, I've seen a very odd tweet today by someone saying JKR made this decision and it's all her fault. I mean she's great, no arguments there, but I don't think she controls the NHS.

If she did, we'd have got here about six years ago.

Or maybe Jameela Jamil?

Could have been both in fairness