MPs 'spreading misinformation' says Cass

[mzdemeanour]

Baroness Cass rejects accusations of discrimination and says MPs are 'spreading misinformation' about the decision to ban puberty blockers for gender questioning children - interview in the Times www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/hilary-cass-puberty-blocker-ban-misinformation-2dc36vpd5

Depends on the hospital what title they have, but yes no by GPs.

Coincidentally Google linked me to an article in the Pulse, I think it's a GP magazine. I'm not a GP but I couldn't resist. It's about GPs prescribing puberty blockers

https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/mental-health-pain-and-addiction/gps-can-continue-prescribing-puberty-blockers-in-some-cases-nhs-england-says/

This is the pertinent bit

From 26 June 2024, GPs are only able to provide NHS prescriptions for GnRH analogues if:

• The patient is aged 18 years or over

OR

• The patient is 17 years or under and the purpose is for a medical condition other than gender incongruence/dysphoria

OR

• The patient is 17 years or under and has been issued a prescription for puberty suppression in the six-month period prior to 26 June 2024 (in this case they may continue to be issued with prescriptions).

Prescriptions for puberty blockers from a European Economic Area (EEA) or Switzerland-registered prescriber are banned in all circumstances for patients under 18.
Source: NHS England letter to GPs

From this I would assume that prior to 26th June 2024 GPs could prescribe PBs to children and now they still can for over 18s and for under 18s for non-gender conditions or as a repeat prescription. They can refuse if they don't feel competent.

Thank you lcakethereforeIam.
I’ve just logged on to see that my earlier comment would appear to have been regarded as incorrect. It wasn’t.

I didn’t question my friend when she told me. I had been helping her at a children’s birthday party and her little girl unfortunately had body odour so bad that another mum unkindly mentioned it. My friend told us that she had already seen her doctor about it but although he recognised the child was going through early puberty (she already had developed breast buds) to prescribe anything to delay it would likely be more harmful to her than just allowing it to progress naturally.

Whether that would have been referring her to specialists or not, it was the GP’s decision.

During a debate last night in the Lords, Baroness Cass again clarified the distinction between prescribing PB for precocious puberty and prescribing them for gender dysphoria.

"It might be helpful to elaborate on just one or two of the points that have been raised, particularly the use of puberty blockers for precocious puberty—that is, for children who enter puberty too early—which is a licensed use of these drugs. We are confident about that use because we have many years of experience, and because it is a very different situation from prescribing for young people with gender dysphoria. The difference is that children with precocious puberty have an abnormal hormone environment, which we normalise, whereas in young people with gender dysphoria we are taking a normal surge in pubertal hormones and disrupting it. That is why it is much less clear what the long-term impact of that intervention is, and why we need careful clinical trials."

Yes but we pretty much never did, it was always secondary care prescribing.

During a debate last night in the Lords, Baroness Cass again clarified the distinction between prescribing PB for precocious puberty and prescribing them for gender dysphoria.

It's great that she's there and can cut misinformation off straight away.

Yes and great that there are so many sensible voices in the HoL although I fear no matter how many times Baroness Cass repeats herself she still will not get through to those who are convinced it's discriminatory.

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1868772967637041520

Link to clip of Baroness Cass speech on x

Which is why her attempt to appease through adherence to the ideology - the acceptance of such a thing as a ‘trans child’ - was not only pointless, it also ultimately undermines her report.

On Saturday, Aiden Kelly (from Gender Plus) participated in a phone interview on LBC. He suggested that PBs are/ can be used in instances where internal testes come to light in cases of previously undiagnosed DSDs. He said transphobia is the explanation as to why a 12 yo ‘girl’ with a newly diagnosed DSD is prescribed PBs (to enable processing time before deciding what treatment path to follow) whilst a 12 yo trans boy isn’t.

Both precocious puberty and DSDs are endocrine conditions, that originate in abnormal physical development. Gender distress and non conformity have psychological and sociological origins so are fundamentally different - using the literal meaning of fundamental.

'in young people with gender dysphoria we are taking a normal surge in pubertal hormones and disrupting it.'

Why? What is the clinical rationale for inducing endocrine disturbance in a healthy child who is dissatisfied with being the sex that he or she is?

'That is why it is much less clear what the long-term impact of that intervention is, and why we need careful clinical trials.'

No, that does not explain why we need clinical trials. Cass has already correctly explained that to give puberty blockers to a child with 'gender dysphoria' is to disrupt the normal development of a healthy child. To present so clear a case for not experimenting on healthy children of normal pubertal age with drugs that disrupt their essential normal development, then to follow that by saying this is the reason we need to experiment on healthy children in a way that disrupts their essential normal development makes no sense at all.

Politicians including Alex Sobel, the Labour MP, and Siân Berry, of the Greens, suggested it was discriminatory to allow the drugs to be used for children with early-onset puberty but not for children questioning their gender identity

How are they not embarrassed to parade their stupidity like this?

This argument is such a clear example of an inability to think things through.

Indeed.

I'm hoping she thinks it'll never pass ethics. That she's adding more clarity to help nudge everyone to a position where more and more people are asking Why The Actual Fuck would we experiment on children's bodies and brains in the hope that they'll feel happier?

The very high rate of resolution of gender dysphoria with natural puberty is another huge stumbling block for any trial. To give experimental treatments with irreversible effects and a severe side effect profile to children with a condition which has an 80% spontaneous remission rate is grossly unethical. It's going to be very hard to justify a trial.

Malcolm Clark has written an article in Spiked

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/12/17/inside-the-battle-to-ban-puberty-blockers/

It's his take on how the PB juggernaut was stopped with due credit given to LGB Alliance and, he writes, the fight continues.

Great article. I'd not thought of the role of the LGB Alliance as a shield for other groups against the accusations of homophobia, but he's right.

I'm hoping she thinks it'll never pass ethics.

Me too.

Fab article. Thank you for sharing.

Alex Sobel's monthly newsletter to constituents boasts about his contributions in Parliament in recent weeks:

• Marking International Men’s Day on 19th November, I spoke in Parliament about the challenges faced by trans men and transmasculine individuals. By confronting this erasure, we can work toward a more inclusive and equitable future

• I questioned the Health Secretary on the decision to extend the ban on puberty blockers to 2027

I'm sure he is a Righteous True Believer, but this virtue-signalling hand-wringing evidence-free thought-terminating-cliche-spouting bollocks would nevertheless be mostly very well-received in our constituency. (Except for me, of course).

So on international men’s day he wants to talk about women and on international women’s day, he wants to talk about men. 🤷‍♀️

Nailed it!