Streeting declares the puberty blocker trial 'safe'

[ArabellaSaurus]

https://archive.ph/CFzK4

'On Monday, Mr Streeting reiterated that he was not “comfortable” with the trial, which involves more than 200 people under the age of 16, but said there were significant “checks, balances and safeguards” that made it safe.

He told Sky News: “The thing I’ve had to continually weigh up is that for lots of people who have been through this sort of gender identity treatment, they describe it as life-affirming and life-saving. But there is an understandable degree of public anxiety and concern.

“The crucial reassurance is that not just anyone will be able to sign up to this trial. They will go through extensive assessment by expert clinicians locally that will be reviewed nationally, and every young person would need to assent.
“They’re not old enough to consent. They would need to assent, and they would <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/CFzK4/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/children-cannot-consent-puberty-blocker-trial-wes-streeting/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">need the consent of parents.

“And so there are lots of checks, balances, oversights and safeguards and constant monitoring in a way that disgracefully wasn’t there before. That’s what gives me the confidence and assurance of knowing this trial is safe.

“There is a debate about whether this is the right thing to do. I understand that, and there’s one thing we’ve learnt about this particular area of policy is that we shouldn’t silence, debate, dissent, disagreement.

“So we’ll continue to have that, and we’ll continue to be subject to scrutiny and challenge.”

Mr Streeting admitted that the children who will be involved in the trial are “very young” and that the drugs are “very strong”.

But he claimed he had tried to take the “politics out of what has been an extremely <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/CFzK4/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/25/nhs-puberty-blockers-trial-repeat-tavistock-whistleblowers/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">difficult and sensitive issue”.

Despite the research going ahead, the Health Secretary added: “I think there are still big questions about how we ever ended up in this situation where these sorts of drugs were being routinely prescribed with and we’re continuing to get into that and looking.
“There’ll be another study looking at what’s happened to that cohort of young people over time.”'

Another one pleased to hear this is being debated.
Those in favour of this experiment need to explain and be challenged about the risks to their future health and fertility that these children are being encouraged to undertake. Especially in the light of the evidence that the majority of them witll have significant additional mental health problems.

Awful irony that the Labour Party is consuming itself over Mandelson and Epstein yet adults also permanently harming and gaslighting young kids (predominately girls) in this sort of a way is still seen as completely acceptable in some circles. It’s all abusive.

Line it up and you have:

Mandelson and Epstein
The absolute farce of trying to control the grooming inquiry
The sitting on and stifling the Supreme Court judgment
The desperation to allow the Streeting Experiment, which sacrifices children largely for the placation of adult men

Labour has a very serious problem with women and children. Huge.

I have always voted for Labour to hopefully encourage spending and discourage cuts to the NHS and schools and good government services. They are a lot of what support us as a stable democracy I think. And I like Wes Streeting and think he’s making a good fist of doing a very hard job on the whole. (I don’t think he’s listened enough to the junior doctors though)

I just find all of this Epstein and Mandelson scandal and soul searching with token resignations and furiously seeking out individual scapegoats so depressingly familiar. It doesn’t challenge the systemic issues allowing these abuses. I have always said that no UK political party actually supports women and children and unfortunately I still think that’s true. Because our overall culture doesn’t support women and children.

We are so much more a sexist misogynistic country in the UK than we think of like to admit and that kind of patriarchy is inevitably abusive towards children too. Because men’s sexual rights of access and to do what they want, are always there, unspoken at the very top of the agenda.

Even now, any of us who see this and try to live our lives outside that system or to oppose the abusive exercise of this sexual entitlement, do so at our own risk. The long lists of safeguarding failures under each governing party illustrate that.

Have you seen who is chairing the debate regarding the PB petition? How much influence does he have in this capacity?

Just chairing. In theory it shouldnt matter. Although recalling the WESC meetings chaired by Caroline Nokes may be indicative.

Labour would have to find someone to Chair the debate and trying to find someone who wasn't a 'trans' maiden in their ranks would be impossible.

We'll have to see if the he gives more time to those speaking in a way he favours and cuts short any time anyone speaking in a way he doesn't agree with. 🙄

Of course a Member of Parliament acting in their official capacity would obviously act at all with the impartiality and honourability, not to mention with the Nolan Principles strongly in mind, when acting in their appointed capacity and its heavy responsibilities.

Cough cough cough.

As ever, the public are speaking about safeguarding children while a politician is talking about demands from dodgy adults.

Let me just go check for book burning and gas chambers

You’re not familiar with Dr Mengele, “Bobby”?

Baroness Nicholson is on the case seems something dodgy occurred.

SEEN in Journalism
https://x.com/JournalismSEEN/status/2020604685821128856

Baroness Nicholson is looking at the functioning of the House of Commons Petitions Committee after it emerged that a self-declared transactivist will chair the Commons debate on puberty blockers. The question being asked is: how was he chosen to chair the debate.

Replying to @GrumpyOW @roseveniceallan and 2 others
That seems unlikely. I think chairs for these debates are selected from this list and he’s not on it:

Is it not also the case that if this upcoming trial was deemed to be unethical that would cast its shadow on the clinicians at the Tavistock for all of those years they were prescribing PBs and not collecting any data? That would leave the NHS looking very culpable and open to legal action.

Definitely! They already know that prescribing puberty blockers is harmful and also that there is no evidence that children precribed them go on to be healthy and distress free as a result.

The lack of record keeping already makes them vulnerable to legal challenge.

Yes, it will most likely, as with 'The Women and Equalities Committee', be peopled by the predictable activists - with just a few lone Tories on the opposite bench.

He's not going to stick his neck out at this stage. He's not the leader and if he did stick his neck out he never would be the leader. He's said more than any other Labour MP about how uncomfortable he feels with it. I think that is the most we can hope from him at this point.

Yes, but this new trial delays that, maybe? Kicks the can down the road.

I don’t see how as any claims at the moment would be from historical patients given PB.

Are there any claims at the moment?

Ultimate this lot won’t be in charge when the compensation claims hit the courts so the politicians don’t care. They’ll do whatever they think is the most politically acceptable thing to do.

Ach, I'm sure it'll be fine. Merely sterilising a few.kids as Health Minister is unlikely to have any long term effect on his ambitions.

He take cover behind the fact that Dr Cass recommended it and that the ethics committee supposedly passed it.

Positioning that man to chair the debate is a total affront to democracy. These are not serious people. The party is rotten and laughing at us.

None that I am aware of but I can imagine they may be confidential to protect the identity of the people involved.