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 am not a scientist but I can understand the principle of informed consent. If experts like the NHS and the Karolinska Institute are saying there is insufficient evidence for the benefits of puberty blockers in addressing gender dysphoria and growing evidence of potential irreversible harms how can a pre-pubescent child make an informed decision? An adult can voluntarily accept a risk of an experimental treatment even if the information is scant but I don’t see why anyone would consider asking a child to do the same for a condition that can be addressed through other safer interventions.

Yes all of this BFP. @New Yorker. There is a lot of information on this thread if you care to go back and read through it. Early on you suggested it should be left to the children themselves to make the decision. This isn’t how parenting works and can see some folks kids bringing law suits against their parents for not stopping them when the many harms were clearly and unambiguously in the public domain.

Btw I am actually a scientist but frankly my status as a mother is sufficient insight to make a decision on this subject.

I find it fascinating when you get an insight into the inner workings of the brains of people who hold views you simply cannot fathom. It is a good reminder that for some, no evidence will be enough, no expert will be expert enough, no common sense will be sensible enough.

Because they're high on their own Righteous BeeeeeKind farts, would be my guess.

Cold, hard evidence seems to be the kryptonite of the affirmation only world.

Children can't give informed consent about things such as fertility, bone density and sterility.

Heavens, grown women are refused tubal ligations, because they are not old enough and they might want children one day.

If my primary school child chose to go down the PB/cross sex hormone/surgery route, it is likely that I would outlive them.

I saw a post elsewhere on SM saying it's unfair that "cis" children will still have access to these drugs and implying that this is somehow discriminatory.

I have a child who was on puberty blockers for CPP (precocious puberty). There were medical assessments beforehand and the consultant had to write off for permission to prescribe the drugs (triptorelin), treatment was strictly limited to a set number of doses to be given spaced six months apart. During this time DC was monitored and regularly reviewed and I had an open route into the department if I had any concerns or any problems came up. DC did continue to develop while on treatment albeit much more slowly than before as they were on the minimum necessary dose of the blockers. As it was, DC's puberty overtook the blockers and rather than increase the dose we (and their team) decided that they were now old enough to stop treatment and let nature take it's course without significant risk of future problems as the short period on blockers (two years/four doses) had been successful at achieving the aims of the treatment.

I believe the blockers given for treatment of gender identity is at a higher dose and for a longer period and therefore carries a significantly higher risk of health effects.

While I'm very much live and let live and think transpeople have the right to live their lives in safety, free from hate and with the same human rights as the rest of us, I don't think children should be allowed to take these drugs simply because they're too young to give proper consent and puberty itself is a transitional life stage (no pun intended) where the brain is literally rewiring itself. If a child wants to wear gendered clothing typical of the opposite sex, use a different name, use different pronouns, cut/grow their hair then that's up to them and their parents and all of those things can be reversed/refined as they grow. Anything more permanent such as taking hormones or reassignment surgery should have to wait until adulthood when they can make informed choices about their own care.

I’m sorry @newyorker74, this is not “an emerging medical area” at best it’s administration of an untested experimental treatment on a vulnerable group who lack the emotional maturity to grasp the actual and potential impacts of these treatments. At worst it’s unethical doctors exploiting vulnerable people for financial gain or, well, just to see what happens.

There is no unbiased data on efficacy or outcomes. There is no proper research. The overwhelming majority of youth presenting at these clinics have co-morbidities including ASD, OCD, anxiety, eating disorders. Many have suffered trauma or abuse. These kids need counselling and talking therapies - they are not getting their other issues resolved but instead having brief appointments, diagnosis then hormones. The personal and financial costs will be huge for each patient, regardless if they feel it’s a failure or a success.

As for comparisons with pregnancy risks - well, lets agree there is plenty of data, research and longitudinal studies on how that pans out….

YADNBU

@newyorker74

So this has been an interesting conversation but I'm going to leave this thread. I was genuinely hoping that others would be able to give me pointers to try and understand what appears to be the overwhelming point of view on these kind of threads that this treatment = bad thing. I have never once displayed a view that says I disagree with that only that I don't have the knowledge to say either way so want to leave it up to others to choose and would suggest people on this thread do the same or decide to opt in or out if they or a loved one needs treatment. Whilst many posters have been respectful and, I think, tried to provide that clarity others have been called me childish, said I have said I can read medical reports when I clearly said I can't, and mocked the fact that I'm not an expert. Something I clearly said in my first post. I'm no further forward in my understanding of why people on this thread think the way that they do so if you are trying to convert people to your viewpoint this has been a not huge success. Which kind of tracks with my experience of having read these threads before where anyone with a different view is metaphorically shouted at. Thank you to those who did try to engage in what I was trying to get across. Better luck next time I hope.

You tried. I honestly don't think they want to convert anyone to their viewpoint, though. Like you, I've noticed this treatment of any alternative voice before. It's immediately jumped on by multiple posters who use zero-sum bias and logical fallacies to shut down the conversation all the time. It's enormously frustrating - so take heart.

Deflector Bingo

1. Feigned Openness
2. "I'm not an expert" I'm not to blame for anything I say
3. I'm the victim of you being mean to me
4. Can't have a conversation because you are mean
5. Thanks for the experience - flounce

"Read the links"
"Oh no I couldn't possibly do that."

Have you read the links @NefertitiV or are you going to rinse and repeat the ignorance of the previous poster?

Maybe you could comment on the links and not on whether you think the concerned women of Mumsnet are some kind of mean hydra.

Are you at all concerned about children not being able to consent to being rendered sterilised and asking for amputations before they have even had their first kiss. Are you slightly concerned that many of these children are autistic or come from challenging family circumstances?

Or are you just here to tell us to BeKind?

TERF bingo:

Insult all others who do not conform to our mode of thinking
Act like a bully schoolgirl gang
Use the word 'flounce' against another woman

@WandaWomblesaurus

Are you at all concerned about children not being able to consent to being rendered sterilised and asking for amputations before they have even had their first kiss. Are you slightly concerned that many of these children are autistic or come from challenging family circumstances?

Aaand here we go with the zero sum bias thinking. If I support this poster, I must not be concerned about the children! Try to think about one thing at a time, Wanda.

Wait you're just here to tell us we are mean Terfy Terfs!

So have you read the links?

"You tried. I honestly don't think they want to convert anyone to their viewpoint, though. Like you, I've noticed this treatment of any alternative voice before. It's immediately jumped on by multiple posters who use zero-sum bias and logical fallacies to shut down the conversation all the time. It's enormously frustrating - so take heart."

So engage then. Talk about the issues raised. Let's hear your alternative voice. The previous poster refused to read the links and evidence and then got upset and FLOUNCED off.

Are they a woman? I don't know. Can you define a woman anymore? Are you calling women names here. Yes you are.

Can you hold more than one thought in your head? I would hope so. In which case you can read the links.

@NefertitiV Simple question, do you think that as a society we should administer puberty blockers for children, and if so why?

archive.ph/MRVmd

Call to close loopholes on private clinics prescribing puberty blockers

It's uses for appropriate treatment is fine (precocious puberty and prostate cancer) ( apparently also for chemical castration of pedophiles but that would not be an nhs concern

@WandaWomblesaurus

So engage then. Talk about the issues raised. Let's hear your alternative voice. The previous poster refused to read the links and evidence and then got upset and FLOUNCED off.

Are they a woman? I don't know. Can you define a woman anymore? Are you calling women names here. Yes you are.

Can you hold more than one thought in your head? I would hope so. In which case you can read the links.

I was addressing the other poster, not you, about the posting style of people on this thread rather than the content of this thread. Can you see the difference?

Where am I calling women names? Are you okay?

You obviously haven't read the WPATH files. Puberty blockers are incredibly dangerous and cause cancer, osteoporosis, stunted growth just for starters.

@mitogoshi So they were a tomboy. A girl not wanting to wear a dress and wanting to play with boys doesn't mean they are a boy. You are using regressive stereotypes. Girl doesn't = wearing dresses and playing with dolls, you know. The whole point of the 70s, 80s and 90s was to teach girls and boys there is no right way to be a girl or boy. That boys can like pink and play with dolls, and girls can like blue and play with cars. Your relative has bought into ancient stereotypes. This is a regressive, sexist ideology that says if you don't 'girl' the right way, then there is something wrong with you. It undoes all the effort the previous two generations went through to break down gender stereotypes.

So why EXACTLY are the NHS (amongst other western European nations) saying there's both ethical issues and physical issues relating to the level of harm related to puberty blockers, and no evidence that they actually improve the quality of life for these kids?

In the face of significant pressure to keep prescribing them.

Why do you know better than clinical researchers and those who have worked in the field and have whistleblown /conducted a serious review into services and clinical practices?

Or did you just read some shite on social media that you see fit to parrot without thought? Cos 'be kind'.

When your best argument to give kids significant very strong drug which have life-changing implications and no evidence to support the argument that they have clinical benefit in a climate where the activists supporting this have tried for years to actively STOP research and undermine standard clinic safeguarding measures. To the point that the NHS has now said there's an ethical and clinical problem with continuing on this pathway:

You have 'zero sum bias thinking'.

This is just word salad bollocks to try and intimidate and look clever.

However it is an argument which has absolutely no substance to it whatsoever.

None.

The failure to engage with concerns about why so many children identifying as trans are either autistic, gay, have experienced sexual trauma of some kind or have activist parents (or have multiples of these) is a massive red flag. Until we have established why this is happening and what it is that is shaping these patterns there is a massive question about comorbidity and ethically it's a none starter.

We should not make exceptions to medical ethics because it's inconvenient for anyones beliefs or even justified medical concerns. Ever. And this applies even more so when children, especially vulnerable children are concerned.

It is totally irrelevant what the medical condition is. These children deserve better.

@RedToothBrush

When your best argument to give kids significant very strong drug which have life-changing implications and no evidence to support the argument that they have clinical benefit in a climate where the activists supporting this have tried for years to actively STOP research and undermine standard clinic safeguarding measures. To the point that the NHS has now said there's an ethical and clinical problem with continuing on this pathway:
To reiterate, I was addressing the other poster, not you, about the posting style of people on this thread rather than the content of this thread. Earlier in the thread, I did say that the medicine had other uses than blocking puberty in older children (ie. precocious puberty). I don't necessarily agree with it being used it other circumstances, no.

The failure to engage with concerns about why so many children identifying as trans are either autistic, gay, have experienced sexual trauma of some kind or have activist parents (or have multiples of these) is a massive red flag. Until we have established why this is happening and what it is that is shaping these patterns there is a massive question about comorbidity and ethically it's a none starter.
A red flag on whose part? Who are you talking to here?

You have 'zero sum bias thinking'.This is just word salad bollocks to try and intimidate and look clever. it is an argument which has absolutely no substance to it whatsoever.
Not at all. If you were aware of the meaning of zero sum bias, you'd recognise it instantly as a common conversational tool, particularly on this board.