Ban on puberty blockers to be made indefinite on experts’ advice

[IDareSay]

Good news, just released:

“The Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) has provided independent expert advice that there is currently an unacceptable safety risk in the continued prescription of puberty blockers to children. It recommends indefinite restrictions while work is done to ensure the safety of children and young people.”

www.gov.uk/government/news/ban-on-puberty-blockers-to-be-made-indefinite-on-experts-advice

I wholeheartedly support letting kids choose whether or not to take it and recording the long-term outcomes of either in detail.

Funny, there’s already been ample opportunity for clinics - Tavi no exception - to collect that very data, but they haven’t have they? Why is that, hmm?

I missed this astonishingly bad take response to what looks like a murder threat.

@BonfireLadySorry I tagged you in a reply and can't untag you but I was going to ask Butterfly why your point about the lack of any evidence for the use of puberty blockers in autistic teenage girls was completely ignored.

Thank you.

Sounds like you may have dodged a problematic counsellor there tbh. I think no counselling is preferable to bad counselling.
Hope things go OK tomorrow at your meeting.

I agree.

We've been in this position before but things were a lot worse. When she was actively gender questioning and in the throes of a huge mental health crisis, we had to refuse care from CAMHS because of how she had been misrepresented in their paperwork. The hospital CAMHS team said she "identified as a boy". They later clarified that she never did and we eventually entered the CAMHS pathway. She's not at that same crisis point now. We got through that 2 years ago so we'll get through this.

Re tomorrow, I shall be back to being my reasonable self 😁 Each sport should be validated on its merit to decide whether it should be mixed or single sex. There's plenty of available guidance about this for schools.

Many thanks for this clarity

How can there be a benefit, in any other way that immediately short term and psychological, for anyone in blocking a natural bodily process - for goodness sake - and then adding in hormones in quantities not suited to the natural constitution?

Dysphoria turns into short term Euphoria - and then reality sets in.

Comments are open on the guardian about puberty blockers and my goodness , it’s like some commenters are stuck in 2017 and the cass report never happened. Trans kids will die, the opposition to trans children is due entirely to right wing American Christian influences, puberty blockers are completely safe and reversible, etc etc.

"I wholeheartedly support letting kids choose whether or not to take it and recording the long-term outcomes of either in detail."

I mean if you offered a 12 year old to sign up to a clinical trial where you only eat pepperoni pizza and drink coca cola for 10 years to see the effect on a developing body, I'd bet you'd get quite a number signing up to that. Is that ethical to let a 12 year old choose even though as an adult you can fully understand what potential impact a study like that would have on their body and psyche? Even if they thought it would be amazing because they'd never have to eat broccoli again?

Kids can't choose things that have long-lasting and potentially devastating effects on their bodies, because even if they're intelligent, articulate and knowledgeable, they simply don't have the experience to actually conceptualise what a permanent decision means for their future selves.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr0xrpzjzko

This is the key fact & the elephant in the room for any clinical trial. When a doctor diagnoses a condition where the known outcomes are that untreated 80% of people's symptoms self-resolve, and where we have no reliable way of identifying the 20% who will have persistent symptoms - AND where there is no good evidence that active treatment does any good to that 20% - the sensible, logical and ethical option is to wait and see. Putting a large number of people through experimental treatment we know is unnecessary for 80% is totally unethical, and that's before we start to discuss the trial participants being children and the side effects of treatment being permanent effects including an impact on fertility. I really, really don't see how an ethical committee can sign this off and if they do I want the papers to go in the public domain for full scrutiny.

Superb post.

I'm intrigued about what an electronic sit-stand desk does now

It seems the trial/study will definitely go ahead.

Streeting's ban affects initiation and onwards from there of PBs in both NHS and private unless it's in the context of the trial. It's meant to close loopholes and workarounds involving European pharmacies etc.

The trial protocol hasn't been released in its final form but it seems it's imminent. NHS Comms very much needs to come out and clarify matters for people and create some decent public-facing materials.

I do share the concerns about the trials. But #nodebate is over. Transactivist groups are no longer able to dabble in children's healthcare, moulding it for their own reasons. These trials are in children's hospitals who live and understand ethical dilemmas about treating the most unwell of children. I know the NHS has plenty of useful idiots pushing the trans ideology at every opportunity, but the days of deals done behind closed doors are over.
There will be major scrutiny of these trials. The adults pushing for children to be experimented on and potentially losing their future health and fertility no longer have anywhere to hide.

Mentions ethics in reply to this question..

https://x.com/carla_denyer/status/1866892147146039724?t=gQ-DyfhUAUDCdJ-qhVbnfg&s=19

I don’t think the trials will happen. By the time they would be starting, there will be a lot more evidence coming from the lawsuits in the states, and a lot more awareness in the public. I know they are still saying they will, and are planning the terms, but things are moving fast now and I feel confident that by the time the trial could start, there will be enough knowledge in the general public and more evidence from detransitioners of the extreme harms that result from the medical pathway. I really hope I’m not wrong 🙂

The announcement of an indefinite ban is a step forward.

There are multiple threads to what happens next.

The first is proposed puberty blockers trial which in practice may or may not happen. We shall see. Even if it does happen [horribly unethical] we know what it will show definite evidence of real physical and mental damage from puberty blockers, alongside dubious positive benefits.

The second is the assembly of evidence from those who have already taken the blockers. Previously this data was not gathered under the Tavistock, but this information gathering is starting to happen. We shall hear about the results. They are going to be negative of course for the most part.

Thirdly and perhaps most importantly is the political element. It seems to me Streeting is using the TAs own weapons against them in the way they used moderate language to shift ground and undermine women for years. Notice most TAs regard Streeting as basically being Hitler while rhetorically he appears to give ground to them in certain ways. The thing is time is on his side. Their extreme anti-Streeting hatred undermines their ability to influence policy. The TAs are basically undermining the gender moderates, actually far more dangerous than many TAs because they seem more reasonable, by either pushing them to break with Streeting or become EVIL themselves.

Streeting can say he is open to new evidence over time, but the TAs will not provide anything, because they have nothing. Remember the BMA council saying they would have evidence by Xmas that Cass was wrong. Nothing turned up so far.

By the time the ban is reviewed in 2027, there will be nothing new, BUT the evidence that they are a disaster will be even better documented. So Streeting can look even more reasonable.

This political element is key. Note the SNP see the writing on the wall. They have caved already. So that leaves the Lib Dems, Plaid and the Greens who might be fighting the 2028 election on pushing for experiments on kids or instead come round to saying Streeting was right all along. Politically this is a useful wedge issue for Labour. On other issues center/left parties have serious criticisms of Labour, but this is an issue where they can potentially morally grandstand and also neutralise some right wing rhetoric too.

Personally I think Streeting peaked long ago. He is a clever politician though and knows that seeming moderate is in the long term beneficial for him. He wants to be Prime Minister.

I agree @fromorbit, and I think the political reality is relevant in some of the other issues surrounding this whole mess. Particularly the GRA and whether it can be repealed. Some people have criticised FWS for taking the case to court about the definition of woman in the Equality Act, suggesting that trying to get it clarified is acquiescing to the idea of the GRA remaining on the statute books.

I think that it is the necessary first step in demonstrating just how illogical it is to have the GRA at all, and showing the negative effects and how it mangles other legislation is the way forwards, with the ultimate goal being the repeal of the GRA. We can’t skip straight to that, as much as we’d like to, we have to raise awareness and demonstrate the harms before we get there. But I do believe we will get there.

Really interesting post - thank you. Presumably the aggression / emotionally incontinent rantings being aimed at senior labour figures by transactivists has revealed to them what women have been saying all along. That this is an anti social, aggressive movement that's dangerous to society - especially children. And finally women and rational adults are in a strong position with both organisations and evidence available to comprehensively expose the empty rhetoric and bullying tactics (as evidenced by certain threads on here).

I know that I seem to be in a minority here but I feel more positive than many posters about this announcement. Foe me, 'indefinite ban' is the key bit, not the plan to set up a clinical trial. it takes time to set up a trial and, as Goldshelfie says, new evidence is emerging all the time which could influence whether a trial is ethically and practically feasible. It is especially positive to have closed the loophole whereby puberty blockers were being prescribed privately.

I was never a fan of Wes Streeting but I wholeheartedly admire him for actually taking the time to consider the evidence.

Foe me, 'indefinite ban' is the key bit, not the plan to set up a clinical trial. it takes time to set up a trial

The trial is currently scheduled to start recruiting in Feb. 2025 (Jan 2025 if you go by the Telegraph but Feb. is the date given elsewhere).

www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/npc-crg/gender-dysphoria-clinical-programme/implementing-advice-from-the-cass-review/cyp-gender-dysphoria-research-oversight-board/

We should push for them to do this. They've already had their bloody trial experiment on thousands of children! What is the outcome?! What has happened to those kids?

I think that it is the necessary first step in demonstrating just how illogical it is to have the GRA at all, and showing the negative effects and how it mangles other legislation is the way forwards, with the ultimate goal being the repeal of the GRA.

But most European (and many other) countries have a GRA equivalent, and isn't part of that agreeing to accept each others' trans status? So either we're hoping that other benighted countries might follow the UK's wise example (if it went that far), or otherwise, that the UK would say, we're not agreeing to that any more, and tough. Which would annoy other countries in varying degree, and doubtless, the EU too. I suppose we hope that the absurdities will become obvious with the likes of the new laws passed in Germany. What a mess.

I hope you can keep calm and clearheaded. It's appalling that people think it's a good idea to lead someone towards an unrealistic and incoherent view of herself, and potentially the rejection of her body as it is, instead of encouraging the seeds of self acceptance. I fully understand your anger and sympathise greatly.

I see Willoughby is spreading lies about PBs being totally safe,,,

Willoughby claims to be female and have a cervix. It's safe to assume that whatever Willoughby says is the opposite of true.