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.”'

He decided that although gender diverse he didn't want surgery.

The blind spot for Cass is her own conflicting statements.

On one hand she says that the vast majority will desist after puberty. That puberty itself is the 'cure' for gender distress.

But then says it cannot be an 'ethical trial' unless you let the youngest pre-pubertal children take part in the trial to stop their puberty. That by the time they get to 14 it is too late.

Basically, what she is looking for is evidence that blocking puberty benefits the mental health of some children ( without acknowledging that in the short term it might well do so......because they've now been given what they were felt they were desperate for)

I can only give you our experience which was positive and only paused puberty.

So are you saying he went through puberty at 18/19 years of age after five years on blockers?

Was his health affected in other ways? Is he unnaturally short, for example?

What do you mean by 'gender diverse' and why did he decide against taking cross sex hormones? Did he feel that the next step would have been surgery?

If true the long term effect of puberty blockers on your child should certainly be studied before these drugs are used on others.

Are you in the UK? The Tavistock treated thousands of chlldren with puberty blockers and only one child did not go onto cross sex hormones.

And you have grandchildren?

And remarkably, despite treating thousands of children with these drugs, they can't track down any of them to follow up their progress as adults.

It's astonishing how so many people can just disappear.

And long term?

Are they of sound mind now (I ask in the kindest way) and what do they think about what they were allowed to do?

Very interesting how Cass appears to be completely misinterpreting the very obvious point that there will be girls, who we already know would be willing to go us any means available to get hold of puberty blockers, who are therefore very likely to hide bleeding for fear of being removed from the trial and their access to blockers.

This wild missing of the point suggests an emotional response to the MHRA letter- rather than thoughtful consideration of the points made. Like how we are all capable of massively missing a rational/onjective point someone is making when we are angry and defensive.

I don't think I have seen this reaction from Cass before?

I keep going back to her comment about the trial being necessary to stop families accessing unregulated PBs.

Have recent comments from Cass fully put paid to the hypothesis that some had, that she thinks a trial is necessary for drawing a line under all this (medical interventions) once and for all?

There are all these contradictions from her, and then this seemingly angry reaction to the trial pause and reasonable concerns given.

In trying to understand this uncharacteristic emotional response from Cass, I am wondering- Is it possible that she feels that what she calls the ' extreme both sides' and in this case, the 'GC side' and legal threat leading to MHRA pause, are in danger of thwarting this larger, unnamed aim?

I haven't seen the meeting notes from 2023 when she first proposed the trial though.
Which might totally negate this possibility.
Does someone have a copy of that please?

Delayed puberty is anything over the age of 14 in boys:

Possible Complications
A low level of sex hormones may cause:
Erection problems (impotence)
Infertility
Low bone density and fractures later in life (osteoporosis)
Weakness

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007695.htm

"They are safe. Based on a subject of one. Cos I understand science better than you"

🙄i

"Obviously this applies to females too. Cos I'm so scientifically knowledgeable"

Can they not track them down or are the gender clinics refusing to share the data?

"Also heroine is safe because I had some morphine once and didn't die."

The logic and wisdom we are recieving here is absolutely brilliant. I bow to it.

That is correct. No not short. Carried on growing at a slower rate then grew more during puberty. Exactely the height predicted on percentile charts. If he had stayed on blockers and taken hormones to go through a female puberty he would probably be shorter.

If he is male there is no option of going through female puberty.

Was this not explained to you?

I can only tell you our experience. Im not trying to change anyones opinions or speak for anyone else. Just thought others would like to hear it.

A male can't go through female puberty.
You don't appear to know what your talking about, so I question the validity of what you say. 🙄

Obvs it was. I'm not going to get into the ins and out of what constitutes a 'real' female.

I beg to differ. We have our own views. Lets leave it there.

So why are you talking about the possibility of going through female puberty?

You don't give the impression that you understand the limits of treatment.

It's not a case of 'begging to differ'.

It's a question of understanding the treatment being proposed for your child.

If the limitations of treatment weren't clearly explained, it sounds as though there was medical malpractice.

It's not a question of 'views' it's a question of biology, I call poe.

Yep, game over.

It is impossible for a male person to go through a female puberty. They do not ever have the female reproductive system to be able to do so.

Is that how clinicians described it to you and your child? That he would go through a ‘female’ puberty?

All that was possible would be that he would have gone through a male version of an estrogen dominant puberty. If clinicians are using that language that is very concerning.