Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why the NHS puberty blocker trial is appalling

1000 replies

Soontobe60 · 16/11/2025 14:43

Stella O’Malley from Genspect telling it like it is - that a state endorsed trial of puberty blockers for gender dysphoric children should NOT go ahead.
the NHS are not walking into this nightmare blindly - there are enough experts out there telling them what will happen happen to these children if they’re given these life changing drugs.
https://x.com/genspect/status/1989896741358113127?s=61&t=gKvvk-rWmOlYFGMZN8QVvQ

Genspect (@genspect) on X

In a conversation about the Next Generation, podcast host Elliot Bewick @elliotbewick talks with @stellaomalley3 : “This won't be puberty because their reproductive system won't be awakened, it will be a chemical insurgents into their body…and so they...

https://x.com/genspect/status/1989896741358113127?s=61&t=gKvvk-rWmOlYFGMZN8QVvQ

OP posts:
Thread gallery
82
LikeAHandleInTheWind · 20/12/2025 08:31

Regarding adult gender clinics refusing to cooperate with the Cass report - there are two reasons an NHS service would refuse to cooperate with a request to participate in work looking at patient outcomes

  1. There is no one to do the donkey work of pulling the data - this is an issue as it can be a lot of work, but all doctors (those in training & consultants) must participate in quality improvement activity as part of their CPD - and participating in an external, approved study is much easier than setting up your own audit, so I don't think this reason is applicable to adult gender clinics.

  2. They are shit and they know they are.

Harassedevictee · 20/12/2025 08:32

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 19/12/2025 21:43

Emma Hilton (or someone else?) seems to have found minutes of the ethics committee meeting:

https://nitter.net/FondOfBeetles/status/2002082134094409777#m

FFS I take back what I said. This is not how Wes portrayed it.

LikeAHandleInTheWind · 20/12/2025 08:41

Shedmistress · 20/12/2025 07:11

Going back to one of my earlier posts on this. It appears in the ethics meeting minutes that they will indeed recruit more people if they get the numbers.

Added to which, their main ethical consideration seems to be 'are there enough kids on this to be studied?'. Not 'what is it they are treating and is sterilisation the appropriate treatment?'.

Wow - they are openly trying to reboot the Tavistock approach of starting a trial, claiming the treatment is so important that all children must have it, then reintroducing widespread use of blockers.
It's so blatant that this must be the primary aim of the trial team - the protocol includes continuing puberty blockers after the trial then 'compassionate use' of cross sex hormones.

Using treatment on 'compassionate grounds' usually means 'you're definitely going to be dead within a few months so we might as well try any experimental drug going if you want it'. That's perfectly reasonable for someone with very little time left to live and a condition with no effective treatment.

It's an appalling way to 'treat' mentally ill children with a self-resolving condition.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 20/12/2025 09:20

We have an entire establishment at this point desperately trying to get back to the good old Stonewall days.

Facts, evidence, ethics, children's lives, things like that - sod it all.

Said this before but we are about to see children's SEND support destroyed and there is going to be a massive outcry, and a whole lot of distressed children and actual, serious risks of real harm. I predict that oddly, those children and those harms and those feelings and those children's voices and requests will go entirely ignored. As usual. It will be only this particular group of children connected to this particular field of activism where everyone employed to be there is apparently just too emotionally distraught to manage ethics or basic common sense.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 20/12/2025 09:24

Presumably this is just an extract? Wonder how / whether they discussed children / parents giving consent to potential future sterilisation, brain and body impairment?

ArabellaSaurus · 20/12/2025 09:29

I had a look but couldnt find the FOI.

OldCrone · 20/12/2025 10:30

ArabellaSaurus · 20/12/2025 09:29

I had a look but couldnt find the FOI.

I found this on whatdotheyknow (I didn't make this request). They have until Monday to respond.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ethics_approval_of_iras_1011645#incoming-3225300

Emma Hilton, or someone she knows, may have made a separate request, not via the whatdotheyknow site.

Slothtoes · 22/12/2025 09:12

It can still be stoped legitimately if the will is there.

Streeting’s team need to compile all the medical and the social research data we have-,which may be woefully small for various reasons- but which may well have expanded since Cass reported.

Then they must robustly in the public interest begin the more nuanced and much more politically challenging scrupulously methodical work of :

-recording that the TRAs have for decades deliberately ensured that this area is under-researched. Major red flag!
and yet that in parallel anecdotally there is enough evidence never to put a child near these drugs again: this lack of properly researched info is not not simply resolved by ‘OK let’s just trial these drugs then’ as Cass has simplistically said.

The TRAs don’t want parents and wider society to know about the known harms, because ‘transitiioned’ poster children are urgently needed for all the reasons well covered on here.

-the sexism of proposing this trial, in that more complex female bodies (evolved to have the capacity to carry pregnancy) are more drastically affected by these powerful drugs. Streeting’s team must interview the survivors of this disproportionality of risk, because in today’s gender identity clinics, distressed girls outweigh distressed boys hugely.

—cultural causes of adolescent MH and distress arising from sexism, homophobia, ableism and racism have led us down this path . That must be tackled as a priority. Why is it so hard for girls to come out as a lesbian, bisexual or uninterested in sexual relationships?. Why at school is it still not socially acceptable for peers to be autistic? Why is there huge unmet need of trauma caused racism, poverty, family breakdown, multiple factors? What are we doing about this as a society? Drugs on top of unmet need do not equal cures in every instance but may pile on further difficulty.

-CAMHS needs years to repair, so for now there isn’t any MH support for many of the kids who need it. A perfect climate for some kids to be misled to feel that a ‘transitioning’ intervention nowill solve their problems. And means to not be able to freely consent to a clinical trial offering that very same scarce expersive treatment. So let’s not offer that trial and offer false hope.

-the self serving testimonies of brave and stunning adult (usually always male) advocates around this, who did not receive PBs, do not mean anything that is generalisable to vulnerable, autistic, gay, or traumatised children with neglected mental health needs today who did receive PBs or who are at risk of being offered them. These unharmed annd highly biased adult views should be discounted.

-where is the funding to enable transmen and female detransitioners to be hugely and disproportionately studied?. Their needs aren’t being met, their stories and medical experiences not captured and shared. This is also a research priority.

—what can we learn from the health care professionals who describe heavy pressure to refer and to not do ‘watchful waiting’. And who were pressured to follow unevidenced unresearched ‘treatment’ protocols in the NHS. What else have they seen amongst the kids already ‘treated’ that hasn’t been reported and that we can learn from?

  • parents who buy their kids drugs off the internet which means no research and no follow up at all, how is the NHS reaching out to support their needs?. What are their experiences?

Wes Streeting and Kier Starmer must insist on YEARS of follow up of already ‘treated’ kids before the government would consider ever allowing PBs to be used or trialled again. We owe it to the traumatised, autistic, lesbian and gay or grioomed kids who were let down by CAMHS and were instead given these permanently life altering drugs.

I’d like to government to promote in the meantime that as with exposure to any other extreme ideology, or advocate of self harming behaviours, that children have a right to be protected from it online and to receive support if they become involved with this dangerous form of politics.

it should be stated in law that all children have a right and necessity to go through their own natural puberty so they can become adults and then decide for themselves using their natural post pubertal adult capacities to live their life peacefully and freely how they want obviously, and without hurting anyone else, as is generally applicable to all adults). That is a key ethical foundation stone that no decent adult can dispute.

ScrollingLeaves · 22/12/2025 12:00

Slothtoes · 22/12/2025 09:12

It can still be stoped legitimately if the will is there.

Streeting’s team need to compile all the medical and the social research data we have-,which may be woefully small for various reasons- but which may well have expanded since Cass reported.

Then they must robustly in the public interest begin the more nuanced and much more politically challenging scrupulously methodical work of :

-recording that the TRAs have for decades deliberately ensured that this area is under-researched. Major red flag!
and yet that in parallel anecdotally there is enough evidence never to put a child near these drugs again: this lack of properly researched info is not not simply resolved by ‘OK let’s just trial these drugs then’ as Cass has simplistically said.

The TRAs don’t want parents and wider society to know about the known harms, because ‘transitiioned’ poster children are urgently needed for all the reasons well covered on here.

-the sexism of proposing this trial, in that more complex female bodies (evolved to have the capacity to carry pregnancy) are more drastically affected by these powerful drugs. Streeting’s team must interview the survivors of this disproportionality of risk, because in today’s gender identity clinics, distressed girls outweigh distressed boys hugely.

—cultural causes of adolescent MH and distress arising from sexism, homophobia, ableism and racism have led us down this path . That must be tackled as a priority. Why is it so hard for girls to come out as a lesbian, bisexual or uninterested in sexual relationships?. Why at school is it still not socially acceptable for peers to be autistic? Why is there huge unmet need of trauma caused racism, poverty, family breakdown, multiple factors? What are we doing about this as a society? Drugs on top of unmet need do not equal cures in every instance but may pile on further difficulty.

-CAMHS needs years to repair, so for now there isn’t any MH support for many of the kids who need it. A perfect climate for some kids to be misled to feel that a ‘transitioning’ intervention nowill solve their problems. And means to not be able to freely consent to a clinical trial offering that very same scarce expersive treatment. So let’s not offer that trial and offer false hope.

-the self serving testimonies of brave and stunning adult (usually always male) advocates around this, who did not receive PBs, do not mean anything that is generalisable to vulnerable, autistic, gay, or traumatised children with neglected mental health needs today who did receive PBs or who are at risk of being offered them. These unharmed annd highly biased adult views should be discounted.

-where is the funding to enable transmen and female detransitioners to be hugely and disproportionately studied?. Their needs aren’t being met, their stories and medical experiences not captured and shared. This is also a research priority.

—what can we learn from the health care professionals who describe heavy pressure to refer and to not do ‘watchful waiting’. And who were pressured to follow unevidenced unresearched ‘treatment’ protocols in the NHS. What else have they seen amongst the kids already ‘treated’ that hasn’t been reported and that we can learn from?

  • parents who buy their kids drugs off the internet which means no research and no follow up at all, how is the NHS reaching out to support their needs?. What are their experiences?

Wes Streeting and Kier Starmer must insist on YEARS of follow up of already ‘treated’ kids before the government would consider ever allowing PBs to be used or trialled again. We owe it to the traumatised, autistic, lesbian and gay or grioomed kids who were let down by CAMHS and were instead given these permanently life altering drugs.

I’d like to government to promote in the meantime that as with exposure to any other extreme ideology, or advocate of self harming behaviours, that children have a right to be protected from it online and to receive support if they become involved with this dangerous form of politics.

it should be stated in law that all children have a right and necessity to go through their own natural puberty so they can become adults and then decide for themselves using their natural post pubertal adult capacities to live their life peacefully and freely how they want obviously, and without hurting anyone else, as is generally applicable to all adults). That is a key ethical foundation stone that no decent adult can dispute.

Thank you, all so well explained.

Slothtoes · 22/12/2025 21:45

Thank you for kindly saying so, with all the typos and terrible formatting, I shouldn’t type without glasses on and I need to learn to edit. But honestly there is so much wrong here it’s very hard to keep it brief.

Streeting is very right to be wary of political interference in medical or scientific research but the point is that he actually has more than enough reason in the public domain to rightly insist on careful use of proper process and therefore to first need to explore all of the completely politically neutral experiences and concerns that then require more investigation and evidence -gathering to be done, before the trial can ever be safely run.
That isn’t political interference. It’s just being responsible. Then once the full awfulness of the evidence is finally in, then there’s no way that the trial can be run or PBs given to any child who is distressed about gender identity.

Going ahead with this trial doesn’t absolve the NHS of previous culpability if that’s what Streeting is worried about. Just kicks it all a bit further down the road unjustly to the young people harmed. And worse legally and morally, if they run this trial, then (instead of culpability being contained to GIDS’ historical, anti-scientific and exploitative politically-led practices), running this trial will taint the whole NHS and research ethics system for offering it to today’s kids, when we already know better than to do that.

ArabellaSaurus · 22/12/2025 22:16

OldCrone · 20/12/2025 10:30

I found this on whatdotheyknow (I didn't make this request). They have until Monday to respond.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ethics_approval_of_iras_1011645#incoming-3225300

Emma Hilton, or someone she knows, may have made a separate request, not via the whatdotheyknow site.

Thanks

1984Now · 22/12/2025 22:27

ScrollingLeaves · 22/12/2025 12:00

Thank you, all so well explained.

One of the best things I've ever read on here.
This is an absolutely shameful episode, in a phenomenon that is full of shameful episodes.

ArabellaSaurus · 22/12/2025 22:35

To this uninformed eye that seems somewhat scant justification for sterilising 200 children.

There's a list of questions asked by the expert, and I can only really see one of which was answered, and the minutes report that as affirmative that GNhra's are suitable instead of psychosocial treatment, but nobody says why.

I also didnt see an answer to this crucial question, which should have focussed minds:

Why the NHS puberty blocker trial is appalling
Shedmistress · 23/12/2025 07:29

Why is nobody in any position of authority including the fucking Health Minister and Dr Cass asking the question 'Why is sterilisation the correct treatment for liking the wrong toys?'?

OldCrone · 23/12/2025 10:59

Just reading through this now.

The applicants stated that there was not a lower age limit at this stage as the participants were considered developmentally rather than in ages as participants would need not only to display the physical traits of puberty but also the necessary cognitive developments to understand the impact of treatment and it would be unlikely that anyone under the age of 12 would be able to display the necessary developments. ... The Committee accepted the response.

The committee don't seem to have considered the obvious question of whether a child aged 12-16 could really understand the effect of a treatment which will leave them sterile with impaired sexual function.

The committee also seems to have accepted this:

The applicants stated that there was genuine equipoise at the minute and that there was no data at present on the cognitive impacts of puberty blockers.

I'm pretty sure that there has been at least one study which shows that puberty blockers result in lower IQ.

OldCrone · 23/12/2025 11:10

Shedmistress · 23/12/2025 07:29

Why is nobody in any position of authority including the fucking Health Minister and Dr Cass asking the question 'Why is sterilisation the correct treatment for liking the wrong toys?'?

Exactly. I haven't seen it explicitly stated anywhere what the problem, condition or illness is that they are trying to 'treat' with puberty blockers.

What is the aim here?

Is it to sterilise children who would grow up to be gay?

Do they think it's important that everyone fits into the correctly gendered boxes? No more tomboys or sensitive, caring men?

Or is it really some horrible frankensteinian experiment on children to see to what extent a girl can be made into a boy (or vice versa) if the experiment starts early enough?

Surely the first thing that should have been put to the ethics committee is what the 'treatment' is for, and what a successful outcome would look like for the participants.

1984Now · 23/12/2025 11:21

OldCrone · 23/12/2025 11:10

Exactly. I haven't seen it explicitly stated anywhere what the problem, condition or illness is that they are trying to 'treat' with puberty blockers.

What is the aim here?

Is it to sterilise children who would grow up to be gay?

Do they think it's important that everyone fits into the correctly gendered boxes? No more tomboys or sensitive, caring men?

Or is it really some horrible frankensteinian experiment on children to see to what extent a girl can be made into a boy (or vice versa) if the experiment starts early enough?

Surely the first thing that should have been put to the ethics committee is what the 'treatment' is for, and what a successful outcome would look like for the participants.

When you think you can't hate politicians any more than you already do, you realize the well goes even deeper.
I'll admit, trying to work out what's going on here is becoming an obsession for me.
Is there a palpable fear on politicians' part of the power of the gender lobby, that they have an outsize influence on political decisions?
Is there general sympathy and even approval for trans ideology meaning this trial is heartily endorsed by those making it happen?
Is this the cock up model of history, that we blunder from one outcome to another, incompetence and lack of principle/philosophy trumping any plan?
Or is this the long march/progressive agenda in full view, Theresa May/Penny Mordaunt opened the door to self ID as policy, Streeting Starmer Phillipson wedging that door open?

1984Now · 24/12/2025 00:30

lcakethereforeIam · 23/12/2025 22:38

I wish there was a way to force the trial to be named The Wes Streeting Puberty Blockers Trial, so this shame is always associated with him personally.
I view Streeting with more and more disdain, it was him more than anyone in the shadow cabinet who squared Starmer as a risk in govt with a more skeptical outlook.
He who pretty much got GC Labour supporters and others to pinch their noses and put that X in the box for Labour.
Look how that all worked out...

ProfessorIDareSay · 24/12/2025 08:31

Scroll down for letter to the Times against PB trial from a cross party group of peers:
Lord Rooker, Lord Glasman, Lord Young of Norwood Green, Baroness Jenkin of Kennington, Baroness Eaton, Baroness Cash of Banbridge, Baroness Thornhill, Baroness Ludford, Baroness Janke, Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee, Baroness Fox of Buckley

https://www.thetimes.com/article/3df66370-1759-4bee-aa9b-de628cf910fb?shareToken=e411c12f633a76cdf03e006fa408d395

Times letters: Animal welfare reforms and farmers’ plight

The government says it wants to stop rich people buying farmland to avoid inheritance tax. Actors, bankers and business leaders in our area all own farms

https://www.thetimes.com/article/3df66370-1759-4bee-aa9b-de628cf910fb?shareToken=e411c12f633a76cdf03e006fa408d395

Justme56 · 24/12/2025 09:02

EweProfessorSurnameDoctorProfessor · 24/12/2025 08:05

Apologies if this has been posted already:

SEEN in Journalism
@JournalismSEEN
Posting without comment from YouTube Hilary Cass leaked meeting

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N15Nul9dEO8

So only quickly listened to some points.

The children who were most distressed about not getting PBs were the ones who had been stealth for a long time. I guess this isn’t surprising, if they have been hiding their sex from their classmates.

One child was less stressed because he was more flexible. The child wore a dress for school on occasions but other times boys clothes. It’s a bit scary to suggest that a boy wanting to wear a dress is somehow trans!

TW should be able to use the women’s loos - because they had been doing it for years unnoticed.

That’s as far as I got by just clicking every so often.

DrBlackbird · 24/12/2025 09:33

1984Now · 23/12/2025 11:21

When you think you can't hate politicians any more than you already do, you realize the well goes even deeper.
I'll admit, trying to work out what's going on here is becoming an obsession for me.
Is there a palpable fear on politicians' part of the power of the gender lobby, that they have an outsize influence on political decisions?
Is there general sympathy and even approval for trans ideology meaning this trial is heartily endorsed by those making it happen?
Is this the cock up model of history, that we blunder from one outcome to another, incompetence and lack of principle/philosophy trumping any plan?
Or is this the long march/progressive agenda in full view, Theresa May/Penny Mordaunt opened the door to self ID as policy, Streeting Starmer Phillipson wedging that door open?

This is a tricky one. I can only assume they think they’re being oh so kind and progressive because they’re Labour (or a Compassionate Conservative 🙄).

And they’ve only ever met lovely non assuming trans people. They’ve never met a Kardashian or White etc in a cold dark place and never found themselves in need of a rape centre or hospital ward. Never been in prison. Never lost a podium spot or short list. Unfortunately people tend to need personal experience to really understand the full situation.

The one situation that they might experience is having a ‘gender questioning’ child but this is what I really really don’t understand.

Why would any parent want their child to remove healthy body parts with potentially dangerous surgical complications, take life changing medications, reduce the pool of potential partners, become anorgasmic and infertile and/or unable to breastfeed should they change their mind later in life and have a baby. All whilst we know that children and young people’s cognitive functioning is not fully developed until mid to late 20’s.

That, I do not understand and never will.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.