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.”'

I agree. However, it could then be argued that it is even more important to pass access from the private providers to the State, precisely because it does involve children.

I'm so confused why this trial is happening. It's only been like a year since they were banned in light of evidence they were harmful, so why are we now doing trials to restart them?!

Granted this ^^ is one good argument to permit legal abortions, but I’m not sure that comparison between the UK govt offering off licence use of PBs to minors (who cannot consent) to this argument holds.

I guess you’re saying that the UK govt providing PBs to prevent illegal use is equivalent to the UK govt providing abortions to prevent the dangerous outcomes of illegal abortions. Is that what you’re saying?

If so, it’s a false equivalence IMO with respect to the ages, ability to provide informed consent and the known predictability of the medical outcomes. In the one case, it’s usually an adult woman making an informed decision for a procedure that, on balance, does not lead to permanent harm. The other involves children who cannot comprehend the side effects including permanent infertility and anorgasmia.

Irrespective of those arguments, my concern was that the trial will not attract the parents buying privately off licence but new parents and new children who otherwise would not be taking them ie offering legal PBs will not prevent illegal use.

I'm not sure that children already taking PBs illegally supplied by their parents after purchase overseas or on the dark web will be eligible to participate in the PB trial. One arm of the trial is to defer PBs for a year which isn't possible if they are already taking PBs.

@DrBlackbird I guess you’re saying that the UK govt providing PBs to prevent illegal use is equivalent to the UK govt providing abortions to prevent the dangerous outcomes of illegal abortions. Is that what you’re saying?
I'm saying that the arguments are similar in both cases, and therefore open to weaponisation by TRAs. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'equivalent'.

If so, it’s a false equivalence IMO with respect to the ages, ability to provide informed consent and the known predictability of the medical outcomes. In the one case, it’s usually an adult woman making an informed decision for a procedure that, on balance, does not lead to permanent harm. The other involves children who cannot comprehend the side effects including permanent infertility and anorgasmia.
I agree that abortion for adult women and pb for children are not equivalent and you have helped me to clarify my thoughts on that. However,the children run the risk of getting the side effects either way. Supervision within the NHS may lead to earlier detection of problems leading to withdrawal of the pb. I imagine there is precious little supervision from the online providers. In that sense I would continue to argue that there are parallels with the 'safety' argument of abortion provision

Irrespective of those arguments, my concern was that the trial will not attract the parents buying privately off licence but new parents and new children who otherwise would not be taking them ie offering legal PBs will not prevent illegal use.
I agree with this in respect of the trial, partly for the reason @PrettyDamnCosmic gives

I think another difference is that the pb trial is literally an experiment, and it isn't clear what harms taking pbs is supposed to prevent, apart from a nebulous idea of empirical distress.

Gender identity hasn't even been defined.

There isn't (afaik) an agreed on diagnosis that would lead to pbs being prescribed.

So this is another aspect where the analogy falls down.

We know why women need abortions - they cannot/ do not want to proceed with a pregnancy. This is a concrete, material issue- baby or no baby.

There is no agreed 'reason' for pbs. Except 'because they want it'. Its a physical intervention to 'solve' an emotional problem.

Also, although side effects are possible from abortions, they are not likely. All available evidence shows side effects from pbs are very likely.

And another difference: having an abortion doesn't mean you're likely to be on a medical pathway for the rest of your life even if all goes well. Taking pbs for gender incongruence does.

I can see why you thought of this analogy but upon further examination I don't think it holds.

The parents giving synthetic hormones to their children illegally should be in jail for child abuse.

Some of them, maybe. Not all of them. Parenting is hard and when your children are hurting it can make you do things that you would never have imagined yourself doing before everything went to shit

All great points, but they won't be easy to make when a TRA with a megaphone is arguing equivalence between pb on the NHS and abortion on the NHS, on grounds of safety.
I, personally, won't be using the heroin argument

Giving my kids illegally obtained drugs without even the certainty that they are what the packaging says they are would not be something I’d be willing to do, however desperate I was for my child to have help.

I envy you your certainty

I have it, because I lived it. And no, I didn’t go down this route because keeping my child alive and safe was my priority.

And no, if you’ve read any of my other recent posts, there is no part of the past 7 years of my life a sane person would envy.

@FallenSloppyDead2 i certainly agree that parenting is hard.

Also that parents might find themselves agreeing to a course of action they fundamentally disagree with if they truly believed that their child would end their lives without that course of action.

Doubly hard when professionals are telling you that course of action is what must happen. Which is why I blame education, healthcare and counselling professionals much much more than I would blame (some, others more) parents.

Sorry, I stopped paying for MN premium features so I can't search for your previous posts. I think I have 💐some of your posts but I can't remember the details, though that will be my inadequate memory rather than a lack of caring. Anyway you have my full sympathy, from one parent with a suffering child to another.

I have dear friends who used to buy street drugs for their 14 year old to keep him away from the dealers. Keeping him alive was their priority too. We all make the decisions we make with the information we have at the time. It's only with hindsight that you get an idea of how well a desperate decision went.

This discussion is why I hold such contempt for all the transactivist organisations and their supporters in politics, education, social care & other professions who relentlessly pursue children in schools and everywhere children gather with their "sex change is a great option for kids" lies. Promoting parental alienation via intimidation and coercive control is embedded in everything they do. So parents have nowhere neutral to turn for support, no organisation who centres safeguarding children over queer theory ideological demands.

Society has allowed these charlatans to inflict on children and their families the delusional and dangerous sex change narrative along with a shameful neglect of children's right to protection and safety.

There is a sort of converse argument when a government decides to step in like this as a measure to prevent people taking an illegal route to obtain whatever drugs or services they want. That is that the government, by taking this action, legitimises the use of the drugs or services.

So a government which decides to prescribe drugs to people who are obtaining them on the black market, or obtaining illegal drugs via dealers, is saying that it's not the drugs that are the problem, but the means of obtaining them. This applies equally to heroin or puberty blockers.

It also applies to abortion. A government which decides to legalise abortion, because women are having dangerous illegal abortions, is actually saying that abortion is OK, but when abortions are carried out by unqualified people or in unsanitary conditions, it's the conditions where the abortions are taking place that is the problem, not the abortions themselves.

In this particular case, despite the fact that puberty blockers cannot be legally prescribed to children in the UK, the government is saying that the drugs themselves aren't that bad, it's children obtaining them from unregulated sources without proper medical oversight that is the problem. The trial going ahead mean's that we're one step away from the embargo on prescribing PBs to minors being lifted. Because if the problem is just the fact that they're being sourced from unregulated suppliers without medical supervision, then it'll be OK to go back to the old GIDS days.

The trial is starting to look like a Trojan horse to me.

Quite.

They took the children into care to get them away from their dangerous parents who were not safeguarding them.

Jumping in late with my take on the Cass view and to offer a different conclusion flowing from the same logic.

Cass says (paraphrasing here) some parents believe so strongly that PBs are the solution to their child’s v real distress that they are accessing PBs online, which may be unsafe. She concludes it would be safer to administer PBs (about which there is inadequate evidence they are safe as per her own review) under an NHS trial because this would be less unsafe/ would provide the evidence they really are unsafe. (Not sure the second inference is where she’s coming from but that’s my read of it).

This seems about the sixth best option!
My logic flows like this:
1 there is no evidence PBs are safe for use to stop puberty
2 the uk govt (and other govt/health services) have banned them as no evidence they are safe
3 some parents nevertheless believe they are the solution for their child’s distress and are buying them online
4 the uk government should run an information campaign to ensure healthcare providers, parents and influencers (eg teachers) understand the risks and the reasons why PBs are not used by the NHS
5 uk government to properly fund mental health services for children so distressed children can get the help they need
6 uk government to publish the schools guidance for gender questioning children that has been languishing in a dark basement since this govt took power and return parental authority
7 uk government to put resources in place to support parents illegally administering banned drugs to their children so the children are protected and supported (there should be room for prosecution but mostly I believe these parents are scared and misinformed. They need to know they need to stop doing it though).

And in both those examples, it's possible to quantify the problem.

Abortions: Women do not want to be pregnant.

Drugs: People want them because of the psychotropic effects, and we ban them if we think that they are too addictive and/or there are too many adverse side affects.

But nobody has explained what gender incongruence is, or whether they have considered the long term implications of preventing humans reaching sexual maturity. The only justification seems to be 'some people would like them'.

Just seen this. What a gutless decision from Streeting.

Sex Matters have been fantastic on this. This podcast really breaks down what a flawed and frankly pointless "study" this is going to be.

I share their feeling of "how in the hell did this get a green light" . It's complete insanity.

JKR has signed the petition - reported in the Mail.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15453939/J-K-Rowling-petition-against-Wes-Streetings-puberty-blocker.html

The argument that street drugs may be dangerous is an odd one. What might happen - children may miss puberty, may end up sterilised? I mean this is the desired outcome, not a side effect.

I've said this before, but a friend of mine, an elderly male, was prescribed Lupron for end stage terminal prostate cancer. He found the side effects so difficult, he quite literally chose to die faster than continue with the treatment.

I'm very sorry.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/nhs-no-longer-puberty-blockers-reversible/

From 2020:

'GONE is the claim that puberty blockers are considered to be fully reversible:
“The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible, so treatment can usually be stopped at any time after a discussion between you, your child and your MDT”.
NEW is the admission that long-term effects are unknown:
“Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.
Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.”'

Edit: There's actually loads more to it - see the full article. Article also has a link to the archived older page.