Why the NHS puberty blocker trial is appalling

[Soontobe60]

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

This is the message that we need to emphasise. That it boils down to these appalling medics proposing to ask young children if they're OK with giving up their future fertility, sexual function & feelings along with potentially damaging their brains.

Worth remembering that Cass is in favour of this being done to children.

Trying to be positive for this, one of the groups of children is being given the puberty blockers for two years, the other for one year. So at the end there is an opportunity to change their mind and go through puberty. Admittedly, we all know that children on puberty blockers tend to progress to cross-sex hormones, but if we are looking at children in their early to mid-teens, who have been put on the drugs for a maximum of two years, maybe that won't happen? I don't know.

I'd also like to know what happens if the children themselves want to stay on puberty blockers after two years - will they be allowed, given that puberty blockers have now been banned on the NHS?

Exactly. I would have been adamant at that age that I was never, ever having children. Guess what, I changed my mind when I got older. There is no way a child can realistically answer that question with a genuine understanding of what they're agreeing to. They already know infertility is a potential outcome, so it should not be possible for this to go ahead.

I plan to write to my MP too. Is anyone aware of a draft text that can be used? I know for some campaigns they are available. I don’t mean to be lazy but still recovering from illness so brain still fuzzled.

@RoyalCorgi ”I'd also like to know what happens if the children themselves want to stay on puberty blockers after two years - will they be allowed, given that puberty blockers have now been banned on the NHS?”

I imagine that after 2 years the campaign arising out of this trial will push for their reinstatement 🥲

I was adamant that I was never ever having children.

And I didn't.

However I wouldn't have wanted osteoporosis in my 20s or having my breasts removed as a 'treatment' for this 'affliction'. It is barbaric.

Osteoporisis in my 40s was horrendous enough. I'd never have made it to my 40s if I'd had it in my 20s.

Who is personally responsible for determining that this trial was ethical? wtf were they thinking

Thanks for the link to the protocol. I would very much like to see the workings and decision making from the ethics committee as well. There seems to be a huge hole in the trial. What happens after the 2 [or 1] year period on blockers? You will have a child who will have been unable to develop normally emotionally or physically who may be as young as 13 or 14. They will be in all probability unable to come to any rational conclusion about the best path for themselves as their development has been deliberately stunted. Stopping the drugs to enter a late puberty would understandably be terrifying for them. This is why the kids from the Tavistock put on puberty blockers almost always ended up on cross sex hormones whereas those allowed to go through puberty for the most part desisted. I cannot see how this trail can come to a different outcome.

Wes on X today…

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1992185328371634573.html

But they won't have data until years later.

I think the route to take with Streeting is the review and recommendations of the ethics committee. Where can this be accessed?

The Research Ethics Committee discussions aren't usually published but I'd say in this case there is a strong case for demanding they be made publicly available

Streeting:

Puberty blockers have been used to delay puberty in children and young people who start puberty much too early. Use in those cases has been extensively tested and has met strict safety requirements.

No, they were found to have adverse side affects, but it was felt that the impact of premature puberty is harmful enough to justify use of the medication.

The goal of treatment of premature puberty is to enable children to go through puberty at the correct time.

In contrast, there is no clear definition of 'gender incongruence', and the goal is to potentially prevent puberty happening at all.

All those parents that think Susie Green and Helen Webberly are the people you take advice from.

Unfortunately there are to many that will still think puberty blockers are the answer to their child's distress.

This

There will be people signing their dc up.

The onus is on the ethics committee and politicians not to get to this place where a child’s distress means this trial.

"We're going to damage some kids to conclusively prove that this damages kids"

Those adults madly believing will not be of any comfort or aid to those children as adults if they have to live with damage, regret and betrayal. See Kiera Bell for details. And I'll bet the legal protections against those children having come back against this has been hard baked in.

Yes - why not? Let's run state-sanctioned medical experiments on children......

Don't be so scientific. It doesn't appease the idealogues because they won't get their children on puberty blockers if you say that.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/11/a-new-clinical-trial-will-test-puberty-blockers-on-children

It is unclear how this design will allow the research team to judge to what extent any observed benefits or harms are due to the medical intervention, as opposed to the other support being provided alongside. This was one of many difficulties in the trial undertaken by the Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) and University College London Hospitals in the 2010s. The study “identified no changes in psychological function, quality of life or degree of gender dysphoria.” It is also unclear what will happen to the children taking part in the trial after they have undergone two years of puberty suppression, as per the design. The study protocol says that participants will spend “24 months in randomised trial with potential for non-randomised open extension according to clinical compassionate care.” It is unknown whether those who are younger when they start the trial will stay on the blockers for many years – potentially putting their long-term bone health at risk – or if they will be allowed to commence treatment with hormones at an age younger than 16. This is not currently allowed by the NHS.

And all apparently because some children play with the wrong toys.

It's likely some parents will consider this to be life-saving medicine. So expect them to turn to the black market.

Puberty blockers being given to a child to "treat" gender dysphoria actually works to embed gender dysphoria permanently in the child, and means that their chances of aging out of it are significantly reduced.

@nauticant:

Puberty blockers being given to a child to "treat" gender dysphoria actually works to embed gender dysphoria permanently in the child, and means that their chances of aging out of it are significantly reduced.

Yes, because - as found in basically every study pre the Dutch protocol - going through puberty itself is the thing that helps children’s brains develop enough to realise that they weren’t a boy in a girl’s body, they are just a girl who likes trucks/is going to grow up to be a lesbian/is autistic and non-conforming in many ways not just gender ones.

Archive version

https://archive.ph/vaqbU

I would certainly like to understand the basis for this receiving ethics approval.

I would also very much like to understand the definition of "gender incongruence" according to Streeting and why experiments in body modification are considered ethical by him in response to it.

Given that we are talking about emotional distress rather than a physical condition, it is difficult to understand why the primary line of research isn't psychological treatment. It's illogical.

Still seems to be decision-making in the grip of activists and ideologues.

The trans parent POV is all over the rest of the Internet if you want to see it.
It's all bollocks btw but knock yourself out.