Clinics forced to share data on children who took PBs .. at last

[SpringCalling]

At last …. that this data was withheld should be considered scandalous

https://www.thetimes.com/article/7cd05ecd-277f-4d2e-882a-fbef5fafc6f1?shareToken=65fbc37a71974e792854156d8dae5941

Perhaps you could tell that to all the permanently offended transpeople who keep insisting that we use wrong sexed pronouns for them and threaten violence if we don't.
Oh and while you're at it could you perhaps point out that death and rape threats make your side look even worse

As I've said before, sex realists believe trans healthcare is 'destruction' and 'mutilation.' Thankfully medical providers do not share your sex realist morality.

Trans medicine is appropriate and successful in treating trans people.

Trans medicine is appropriate and successful in treating trans people.

Prove it. The data from these clinics should prove it, shouldn’t it? No need to compromise privacy. All de-identified happy trans adults who were puberty blocked as children. Easy.

Yes it does so does affirmation therapy.
If you were really a child with a diagnosis of body dismorphia disorder (as gender dysphoria was called then) back in the 70s and 80s then you would have received watchful waiting therapy and been 1 of less than 1% of those who suffered it who didn't recover and went on to transition after the age of 18 and then only after you clearly understood that any treatment would not change your sex only the outward appearance of your secondary sex characteristics.
All reaserch has shown a huge increase in females with what is now referred to as gender dysphoria in exactly the same way as anorexia did in the late 90s early 00s due to what we now recognise as a social contagion. It is unsurprising that a 2nd form of body dismorphia is following the same social contagion path as anorexia did, only this one is spreading faster due to the pushing of gender ideology in schools, social media and mainstream media. But like all fads its fading away.
You can argue and spam this thread all you like it won't change the fundamental facts that this has been a mass experiment based on nothing more than ideology and now the results of that ideological experiment will be ferreted out and the true horrors will be shown to the world and then we can protect all children from the dangers of religious zelotry mascarading and science and medicine

Thank you for taking the time to write that answer. I had to read it a couple of times but I think you are saying that human beings can't actually change sex. However, you do believe that people can alter their bodies to look not-male, not-female, as-male, as-female, or something inbetween.

Is that right? If it is, I'm not sure how "sex realism" stops you holding this belief, particularly because your belief appears to incorporate the immutability of sex.

However, to bring everything back to the thread..... Presumably you agree that it's helpful for the anonymised data of everyone who has taken puberty blockers at GIDS to be studied, so that any future gender clinic patients can benefit from this research? Or to put it another way, why should it not be studied?

So called trans health care takes a healthy body and turns it into a disabled body that requires constant medical intervention for the rest of its life. In what way is that health care instead of medical malpractice?

The majority of ex-trans (detransitioned) people started treatment as adults. They, as far as I know, were not found to be mentally incompetent at any time in their lives, so they had both the agency and self-awareness to request treatment. Trans treatment until recently was highly roadblocked and controlled by the medical establishment, which meant they would have had to have been other-worldly insistent in their desire for treatment.

The data already public show 1000s of enumerated trans people, hundreds who received treatment, hundreds who didn't receive treatment and a handful who state their treatment was a mistake.

The data already show more than 99% of children and adolescents who begin blockers request gender-appropriate HRT.

The data will show what the data show.

No one expects sex realists to change their beliefs should the data prove that people experience overwhelming satisfaction and live happy lives post-transition. Sex realist beliefs aren't based in science or data,

Yes the data shows that suppressing puberty locks in gender dysphoria whereas the data also shows that allowing a child to go through puberty resolves gender dysphoria in most cases and proper watchful waiting therapy brings the number of people suffering from gender dysphoria down even lower.
What you see as a good thing ie 99% transition rate with puberty blockers actually shows the harm they cause, also it doesn't take into account that its usually around 5-10 years after completion of medical gender transition that people start to detransition of unfortunately commit suicide.
We should be using the treatment that cures the mental health issues not the one that exaspertes the mental health issues and locks them in whilst irrevocably harming their bodies.
You are suffering from conformation bias

Allowing for a bunch of nuance, yes. Using the sex realist definition of gametes, humans cannot at this time, change their gametes or the systems developed prior to birth to support said gametes.

My understanding of sex and the presence of gender (yes, it is in the room with us right now!) extends beyond gametes. Discussing this with any nuance or expectation of good will is impossible in this space.

I do believe any anonymised data on trans treatment in childhood and adolescence is valuable. The reasonable person in me guesses that it will be judged to be inadequate or unrepresentative if it does not align with sex realist beliefs. I also expect sex realists to slice the data in very unrealistic and narrow contexts to manufacture outcomes not actually present.

Today, there is only unrelenting hate waiting for anyone in the UK who outs themselves as a person with a trans childhood. Hearing anything directly in the voices of people who went through the clinics is exceedingly rare for this reason.

There are other aspects to trans healthcare that sex realists haven't even imagined enough to start arguing about. These factors have existed for longer than I have been alive and are sadly becoming increasingly relevant for youth and young adults finding themselves on decades-long waiting lists.

These are your beliefs.

Data thus far has not produced those 1000s of families demanding their pound of skin resulting from the Tavistock and clinicians.

Hold the champagne! The Times article is misleading. Adult Gender Identity Clinics are not being forced to share any information right now - and might never be.

“The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2026” is enabling, not prescriptive, does not require sharing of information and ethical approval for the study has not yet been granted.

Once approval has been granted then, depending on timing, it will be up to NHS England or the DHSC and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to male sure that the data is actually shared.

Data Linkage Study
Statement made on 26 February 2026
Statement UIN HCWS1369

Statement made by
Wes Streeting
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Labour

Today, I have laid “The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2026” in Parliament. The Order will come into force on 20 March 2026.

This government has always made clear that anyone accessing gender services deserves high quality, evidence-based care and support. Laying this order will facilitate delivery of the data linkage study and is another step to achieving our manifesto commitment to implement recommendations of the independent Cass Review.

The study was planned to take place during the lifespan of the Cass Review, and a statutory instrument was brought forward in 2022 to protect those disclosing protected information for the study. However, it is well documented that some clinics did not share data to allow the study to commence and the study was therefore not completed as planned. Further to this, it is the government's view that the 2022 order now needs to be updated to sufficiently protect those who will now be sharing information for the purposes of the study.

This Order will revoke the 2022 order and will ensure that information that may otherwise be protected under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 can be lawfully disclosed for the specific purpose of the data linkage study. This Order makes technical changes to reflect that NHS England is now delivering the study, that the study is being completed as a recommendation (rather than during the lifetime) of the “Cass Review”, and to update the list of organisations contributing to the study.

The data linkage study is a retrospective study based on an analysis of routine data collected for a cohort of adults who, as children, were referred into a former model of NHS gender care, the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). The study requires no active patient participation and instead relies on an analysis of information already held within health records and other nationally held databases. The study aims to learn more about the needs of individuals referred to GIDS, their healthcare experience, and associations identifiable in the data which may tell us more about the intermediate outcomes for this cohort.

Since assuming responsibility for the data linkage study, NHS England has taken time to undertake due diligence work on the data sources critical to the study, and to work with organisations to refine the planned approach to data sharing. Some small but important improvements have been proposed in the study design that will better support the collaboration of organisations on whom the study team will be reliant for data, including adult gender clinics. It is my clear expectation that all relevant organisations will now provide the data required to complete this study.

Alongside the laying of this Order, updated data linkage study research approvals are also in progress. As with usual research practice, the finalised data linkage study protocol will be made public once independent research and ethical approvals have been appropriately secured, at which point the study can begin.

We are determined to continue our work to improve the lives and healthcare of transgender people in this country. We will continue to implement the recommendations of the Cass Review.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-02-26/hcws1369

The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2026

Statutory Instruments

2026 No. 173
GENDER RECOGNITION, ENGLAND

The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2026
Made 25th February 2026
Laid before Parliament 26th February 2026
Coming into force 20th March 2026
The Secretary of State makes this Order in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 22(5) and (7) and 24(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004(1).

Citation, commencement, expiry, extent and application

1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2026 and shall come into force on 20th March 2026.

(2) This Order ceases to have effect at the end of 20th March 2029.

(3) This Order—

(a)extends to England and Wales, and

(b)applies in relation to England only.

Disclosure for the purposes of the data linkage study

2.—(1) It is not an offence under section 22(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 for an authorised person to disclose protected information to another authorised person where the disclosure is—

(a) made by and to an authorised person in England, and

(b) for the purposes of facilitating, assisting with or undertaking the data linkage study.

(2) In this article—

(a) an “authorised person” is a person employed by or authorised in writing to act on behalf of a body listed in the Schedule;

(b) “GIDS” means Gender Identity Development Service formerly operated by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust(2);

(c) “data linkage study” means the observational study, originally commissioned for the purposes of the independent review into gender identity services for children and young people(3). The study links and analyses GIDS data, adult gender clinic data, and other nationally available healthcare data, in relation to any individual who was—

(i) referred to the GIDS, and

(ii) below the age of 18 at the time of their referral.

Revocation and savings

3.—(1) The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2022 (“the 2022 Order”)(4) is revoked.

(2) Despite the revocation in paragraph (1) the 2022 Order continues to have effect in relation to a person who disclosed information in accordance with that Order.

Wes Streeting Secretary of StateDepartment of Health and Social Care
25th February 2026

Article 2(2)
Schedule
Authorised persons

Chelsea and Westminster Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust(5)

Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear National Health Service Foundation Trust(6)

Devon Partnership National Health Service Trust(7)

GTD Healthcare Limited(8)

LGBT Foundation Ltd(9)

NHS England(10)

Leeds and York Partnership National Health Service Foundation Trust(11)

Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust(12)

Mersey Care National Health Service Foundation Trust(13)

Northamptonshire Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust(14)

Nottinghamshire Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust(15)

Sheffield Health Partnership University National Health Service Foundation Trust(16)

Tavistock and Portman National Health Service Foundation Trust(17)

University College London Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust(18)

The Department of Health and Social Care

Explanatory Note
(This note is not part of the Order)

Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the Act”) provides that it is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person. This Order prescribes circumstances where disclosure of protected information will not amount to an offence under the Act.

Section 22(2) of the Act defines protected information as information relating to a person who has applied for a gender recognition certificate under the Act, and which concerns that application (or a subsequent application by them), or their gender prior to being granted a full gender recognition certificate. Section 22(4) sets out certain circumstances where disclosure of protected information does not constitute an offence.

This Order provides for an additional circumstance where the disclosure of protected information does not constitute an offence. Article 2(1) provides that this is where protected information is disclosed between authorised persons for the purposes of facilitating, assisting or undertaking research for the purposes of the data linkage study. To benefit from the exception, both the authorised person disclosing the information and the authorised person receiving it must be in England when the disclosure is made. Article 2(2) provides the definitions of authorised person, GIDS and the data linkage study.

Article 3 revokes the Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2022.

A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/173/made

PDF version:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/173/made/data.pdf

Wes Streeting said on 26 Feb: "This Order makes technical changes to reflect that NHS England is now delivering the study,"

However, NHS England is being abolished and functions will be moved to the DHSC, ie. responsible to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, currently Wes Streeting.

Oral statement to Parliament
NHS England: Health and Social Care Secretary's statement
The Health and Social Care Secretary made a statement to the House of Commons on plans to abolish NHS England.
From:
Department of Health and Social Care and The Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP
Published
13 March 2025

"Work has already begun to strip out the duplication between the 2 organisations and bring many of NHS England’s functions into the department.

NHS England will have a much clearer focus over this transformation period.

It will be in charge of holding local providers to account for the outcomes that really matter, cutting waiting times and managing their finances responsibly."

"Over the next 2 years, NHS England will be brought into the department entirely."

"Today, we are abolishing the biggest quango in the world."

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nhs-england-health-and-social-care-secretarys-statement

No these are the facts as you'd know if you really had gender dysphoria as a child/teen in the 70s and 80s.
The lawsuits are already beginning to come to crts but we haven't reached the point where the high numbers who were transitioned over the last 5+ years are 5-10 years post competition of their transaction. But let's be honest most wont have the financial resources to sue and even fewer will have the mental fortitude to see the legal process through to the end.
However we dont measure success and failure/harm by lawsuits we use medical data the type of data thats going to come out now and we will see what the rates of osteoporosis and osteopinea are vs the same age and sexed groups who didn't have puberty blockers and/or cross sex hormones, same for vascular diseases, heart disease, stroke, cancer and rates of infertility aswell as any as yet unknown physical harms. We will also see how their mental health has faired compared to other calms patients and rates of early onset dementia.
For someone who claims to care about trans children im surprised that you aren't jumping for joy at the prospect of this data coming out as if you're correct about the numbers of happy healthy trans adults who had puberty blockers and cross sex hormones then the data will show that on every metric and nobody will be able to deny it and puberty blockers can be given to any child who wants them surely that would be a good thing from your point of view and if not why not?

Edited due to fat thumbs

'Sex realist' reminds me of the joke Real Madrid 3, Surreal Madrid 🐟. Although I first heard that joke way before transgender was a thing, I think the punchline is quite prescient. Male, female, clownfish called OnepostWanda.

A fish called Wanda?

I enjoyed that film.

The majority of ex-trans (detransitioned) people started treatment as adults.

You don’t know this. No one does. No one knows how many people who were medically transitioned as children have detransitioned because no one has done any long term follow up. That’s the point. This data set will help figure that out. So you’d support that, right?

They, as far as I know, were not found to be mentally incompetent at any time in their lives

And children?

which meant they would have had to have been other-worldly insistent in their desire for treatment.

Which proves what?

The data already public show 1000s of enumerated trans people, hundreds who received treatment, hundreds who didn't receive treatment and a handful who state their treatment was a mistake.

The data we know about. We don’t know about thousands of former paediatric patients.

The data already show more than 99% of children and adolescents who begin blockers request gender-appropriate HRT.

Which demonstrates what? That it’s the right decision? How?

The data will show what the data show.

So let’s get it out then. If it shows ex paediatric patients are all happy, and fertile, and have good sex lives, and jobs and no brittle bones, then you’d support that right?

No one expects sex realists to change their beliefs should the data prove that people experience overwhelming satisfaction and live happy lives post-transition. Sex realist beliefs aren't based in science or data

You are literally arguing to stop sex realists from getting answers from science or data in favour of “we just know”. Literally, that is what you’re saying. Sex realists want data, you don’t. If science or data shows puberty blockers leads to “overwhelming satisfaction and happy lives post-transition” let’s see it. Why would you argue against science or data demonstrating that?

One of those referenced links shows that the authors have published some wildly inaccurate information:

"Between 2012 and 2022 there were a total of 142 complaints made to the clinic, although the party making the complaint was not recorded.

The number of these where it was felt that gender affirming care was provided wrongly or inappropriately? All of eight. Over a 10-year period, for a clinic that could have up to 12,000 service users (p.9) at any given time."

The figure of up to "12,000 service users at any given time" in the 2018-2019 Annual Report linked in the article relates to an estimate of the number of service users of the whole Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust - not the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS).

According to the graph on page 16 it looks like GIDS saw over 2,500 children but less than 3,000 children in 2018-19 and approx 10,000 children over 5 years (2014-15 to 2018-19).

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Tavistock_and_Portman_NHS_Foundation_Trust_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2018-19.pdf

The fact that GIDS patients accounted for between 20% and 25% of Tavistock and Portman patients seen in 2018-19 would explain why the NHS Trust was so protective of GIDS, eg. ignoring safeguarding concerns raised by multiple staff and Sonia Appleby, the Trust Safeguarding Lead.

That's a big chunk of its income as well as GIDS being a "flagship" national, specialist service, so danger of reputational damage if safeguarding concerns became public. Which of course they did at Sonia Appleby's Employment Tribunal:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6149eb48d3bf7f05ac396f79/Ms_S_Appleby__vs___Tavistock_and_Portman_NHS_Foundation_Trust.pdf

Thankfully medical providers do not share your sex realist morality

Ah yes, who can forget trans poster child, Jazz Jennings. A teenage male who 'medical providers' gave the face of a girl, the body of a woman and the genitalia of a pre pubescent boy.

Which doctors tried to chop up to create a fake vagina which burst apparently. So they cut up part of his colon instead and televised his mother telling him off for not dilating it.

Jazz subsequently became depressed and obese.

And all because he wanted to wear a tutu when he was three.

They don’t seem to live happy lives, trans people seem to be very unhappy, with the misgendering, the relationship issues, the medical issues, the family issues, the outing, the work issues, it does not seem to be a path to lasting happiness.

their happiness seems to be awfully dependent on medical services prolonging their lifestyle choices and everyone they know and meet pretending about their identity.

I feel very sorry for poor Jazz Jennings who was at one point the feted poster child for this kind of cosmetically-driven, very early and permanently life-altering stop being made to the natural development of previously healthy children.

’Sex realist’ sounds fair enough. I think we should all be that. Sex is real. It’s not made up, a fantasy or a lie. The corresponding name for beliefs that hold an opposite view to ‘sex realist’ isn’t going to be very flattering for the TRA camp though…

'Sex deniers'

Jazz Jennings under hypnosis doing "Past Life Regression" in an attempt to cure over-eating and achieve weight loss - this is so sad.

Jazz: "I'm in like a town centre. It's a market. People are selling food. It's like a market."
Hypnotherapist: "What are you feeling or sensing being here?".

"Hungry."

"You're hungry. What's your name?"

"Cal."

"Cal. OK. What are you doing in this marketplace? Do you sense that you live nearby?"

"I don't have a home."

"You don't. OK"

"I don't think my family wants me."

"Why? What happened?"

"I'm gay."

"OK. You're gay."

"They caught me . . . with . . . a guy."

"What happened?"

"Kicked me out."

"Kicked you out. How did that make you feel?"

"Rejected. My dream, was to hold his hand, in this market. And now I'm just alone in the market. And I'm hungry, I haven't eaten."

"OK, just allow that to come up, I'm a right here with you. So we're gonna leave this scene and we're gonna drift and float forward to the last day of Cal's life. You're drifting and floating, floating and drifting and now, what's happening?"

"I'm sitting on a rocking chair. I was never able to live the life that I wanted. Don't wanna, I don't wanna do this."

"You don't wanna do what?"

"I don't wanna live any more."

"You don't want to. . . . So what was he hungry for that day in the market?"

"He was hungry - to be accepted."

"He was. What advice do you have for Jazz, that can help her? What's she hungry for?"

(Jazz crying)

"She's still hungry to be accepted."

"What advice can you give her? You have perspective of all. What can you tell her?"

"She's just, got it all (unintelligible) mixed up, that's what happens with emotions. We get mixed up. That's OK. That's OK."

"And now your spirit, you have full perspective of everything about that lifetime. When you're ready, and only when you're ready Jazz, one two three four five back to your regular waking consciousness, feeling good, feeling rested, feeling wonderful, all over."
(Jazz yawning/sighing.)

Jazz voiceover, recounting the experience, bright and breezy: "Coming out of the hypnosis feels like I travelled through another lifetime. I was definitely able to connect a few dots from my past life to my current life because there are a lot of underlying themes that are relevant to what I am going through now."

Video continues but it's late and I am tired of listening and transcribing now.

Should start 153s in:

s

This is a bit more upbeat. Jazz Jennings' 100lb weight loss. There are are loads of videos out there but all with annoying and sometimes very weird AI voice-overs so here is an article from April 2025 instead.

Jazz Jennings looks so different with chiseled cheekbones in new pics from life at Harvard after 100lb weight loss

https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/14121265/jazz-jennings-cheekbones-harvard-100lb-weight-loss/

An aspect never discuss is how much has PB treated children cost the nhs in terms of after care for later side effects?

It has often been discussed that gender affirming care makes them life long patients- the nhs takes costs / benefits very seriously when weighing up whether to offer treatments.

For example, messing with cross sex hormones and pbs does appear to trigger hypothyroidism in some (a woman who used to post here about her experience with PBs for precocious puberty was affected and I’m sure a couple of detransitioned people have too.) That’s life long treatment and all prescriptions, for any other condition and illness, are free.

Thought experiment:
If you had puberty blockers how would that affect affect you in terms of what a private health care insurance company could potentially refuse to cover in terms of "preexisting issues"?

Given the growing trend of refusals is it possible that a whole host of side effects wouldn't be covered? Or you'd have extortionate fees.

This is something parents potentially aren't considering and frankly really should given the political climate and potential threats to the NHS as it stands.

I can see the possibility of a creek, that stinks, which people end up stuck in.

that creek has already happened with right to choose for adhd.

A friend, who I absolutely agree has struggled with adhd his whole life, finally got a diagnosis. Only to find that the nhs couldn’t support his prescription. He’d hope to try medication. He had to go back onto the anti depressants he was on. Which work and now he can look deeper at various cbt approaches that also work, but none of that experience has permanently damaged his body.

I’ve just had the chilling thought that the trial would have demonstrated what those short and longer term side effects were for the purposes of insurance companies too.