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.”'

'You should usually share information about sexual activity involving children under 13, who are considered in law to be unable to consent.34 You should discuss a decision not to disclose with a named or designated professional or a lead clinician for child protection and record your decision and the reasons for it.

61
You should usually share information about abusive or seriously harmful sexual activity involving any child or young person, including that which involves:

a young person too immature to understand or consent'

Let's do a trial exploring medicalisation and changing gender. We can't define gender but what the hell. We will use the word sex interchangeably with gender by using phrases like 'sex assigned at birth' with the implications of this phrase being that your sex at transition is somehow different. And then we are going to use these words and phrases with minors and in no way is this misleading nor does it undermine informed consent. We can't just us the word 'sex' for sex and 'gender' for gender because this distressed the children and it's apparently biased despite it being reality and the truth. Discussion of reality and using terms that reflect reality is traumatic and transphobic so we have to avoid that.

In what way exactly is this study safe and unbiased?! Wes are you just having a massive fit of cognitive dissonance here?

Hello anyone home?

Hilary Cass and the Puberty Blockers Trial: Double Blind to Danger?

https://open.substack.com/pub/jamesesses/p/hilary-cass-and-the-puberty-blockers?utmcampaign=post&utmmedium=email

Helena Kennedy seems particularly invested.

Let's do a trial exploring how far we can twist reality and distort language. We can't define the terms of the study, because most people still think that words have specific meanings. So we'll use lots of different meanings in the hope that some of it will make enough sense to enough people to get the study done. Why are we doing this? Because nasty shouty men will be upset and nasty to us if we don't. We really need to seem Kind to them otherwise people won't like us. We know that this trial will cause irreversible harm to children's minds and bodies, but this way we can figure out how much harm is worth the resulting distortions, and our votes.

Also, what about parents who are all too keen to consent, who have also subtley pressurised their child to believe they are a different ‘gender’, because ever since they were very young their child liked things stereotypically popular with the opposite sex?

Some parents just do not understand that some boys are more feminine and some girls more masculine than the stereotype, especially after the trans activist propaganda. And some with children like this are revolted, think their child will be gay, and would prefer to trans them.

Look at what happened to Susie Green’s (Mermaids) son because of this. Or the artist Greer Langton, https://zagria.blogspot.com/2008/09/greer-lankton-1958-1996-artist.html

And what about the oarents seeking attention for themselves through a Transhausens by prox?

Where is the screening for consenting parents holding these concerning motives?

James Esses has started a petition to parliament asking it to:

Cancel the clinical trial into puberty blockers & safeguard vulnerable children

4,028 signatures after 7 hours. Should make the 10,000 mark easy which mandates government response. 100,000 is possible and will trigger a much needed debate.

Thanks. Have signed

Here’s the normal advice for GPs from their Royal College about the age of consent:

‘Sexual activity involving a child under the age of 13 should always result in a child protection referral.

This includes situations where both children engaged in sexual activity are under 13 years old and even if the child under 13 has agreed to sexual activity.

Anyone under 13 lacks capacity to give valid consent to any sexual act.

The law is there to protect children from abuse or exploitation. It is not designed to unnecessarily criminalise children.’

https://elearning.rcgp.org.uk/mod/book/view.php?id=15290&chapterid=948

Who is drafting this study as if it’s normal for a 12 or 13 year old to have sex? Even if they’re over 16 sexual activity can still raise safeguarding concerns. This is a very vulnerable group of kids.

Why is this constant adultification of this group of distressed kids (..when it suits the right type of actual adults to do so..) not raising absolutely giant, glaring, unavoidable red flags??

just noting RCGP advice (‘always refer’) is stronger and more detailed and prescriptively given to how to refer regarding safeguarding than the GMC advice pasted upthread is (‘you should usually refer’). GMC also goes straight on to give detail how doctors can legally justify NOT referring under 13s for safeguarding

GMC has that captured policy committee that’s been discussed on here before..

Thank you! Have signed!

It’s the number 1 petition!! Keep on sharing and signing

Signed

Signed and shared

Signed

Signed.

Signed

Do we know how many of the 200 children involved in this "trial" are female?

How is sterilising kids and putting girls on an early menopause and osteoporosis 'safe'?

Exactly. The possibility of pregnancy didnt even occur to me because for a child of 12 (potentially even less) it just shouldnt be a consideration, and if it is a possibility, the suggeated action should be safeguarding and possibly police, not just 'contraception'.

over the 10k now, onwards and upwards to 100k to force a debate x

Sadly though, the petition stuff was framed as democracy in action but is branding and PR only - we have seen before, if it gets to over 100k and the government do not want to debate that subject and find it inconvenient, they won't debate it.

Maybe they won’t debate it, but at the very least it might get it in front of more voters’ eyeballs. Sunlight, and all…

Yes, this. Uproar and a public outcry will help keep this matter in the news. So Streeting's Puberty Blocker Trial for Children will be harder to brush under the carpet.

Or 'Streeting's Child Sterilisation Trial', if you'd prefer.