NHS pauses new cross hormone prescriptions

[YourNavyFinch]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly0ppdzj2yo

Popped over to see what people are making of this, and I think I might be first with this now confirmed TERF-friendly news.

The article will probably get updated, and I have no idea how to archive it, but the reporting didn't seem too bad for the BBC.

Would love to see someone explain the evidence against puberty blockers and other interventions for young people, like how often gender dysphoria actually resolves on its own.

As for the bit about not enough evidence that just reads to me like standard public health waffle which comes across a bit misleading...

Probably won't be able to reply but enjoy the discussion in my absence!

Just to say I happened to see the DM posted about this some hours earlier.

Not sure how they are always in the know, but looks like the BBC etc., held back until it confirmed(?)

Just have to add the Guardian's headline for their article!

NHS England pauses new referrals for masculinising or feminising hormone treatment in under-18s
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/mar/09/nhs-england-pauses-new-referrals-masculinising-feminising-hormone-treatment-under-18s

(Is this because they think their readers wont understand if they say "cross hormone")

Not to detract from the substance of the decision, but just an example of how difficult it is to just get everybody to have a sensible conversation.

sigh.

Sorry should have quoted this:

But after the Cass review, NHS England commissioned its own review of all the available clinical evidence. That review has now concluded and found the evidence did not back the continued use of the treatment for 16 and 17-year-olds.

The NHS England review found the evidence was too weak to show whether such treatment was beneficial or harmful to children with gender dysphoria.

'It is understood the NHS is continuing to examine evidence for masculinising and feminising hormones for adults.'

Is this referring those over the age of 18?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/nhs-press-association-under18s-b1274001.html

Nick Wallis broke the news yesterday.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5500667-nick-wallis-in-dm-nhs-poised-to-stop-prescribing-puberty-blockers-and-cross-sex-hormones-to-trans-identifying-children-under-the-age-of-18?reply=150981873

It is good to see the announcement confirmed.

I am bit surprised you’d want to highlight a Daily Mail story on this, especially when the headline itself says the NHS is merely “poised to” act. But then I’m not a regular poster here; I just pop in from time to time.

I’d also hope the NHS - which is supposed to be an apolitical organisation - isn’t discussing or leaking potential transgender policy changes to journalists. Otherwise it’s hard to see how details like this would end up in the press before anything has actually been formally announced.

All the more so when it appears first in right-wing tabloids, which some people will inevitably view as having a strong ideological angle. That risks making the whole thing look politicised.

It was Nick Wallis reporting.

I am sure that the Daily Mail has many issues, however, if you check who the journalist is it is possible to have some semblance of trust in the article. As usual though the headline seems to have chosen by someone other than the byline journalist. Do you think that Nick Wallis’ article is to be rejected because of where it appeared?

And yes, it reported it was ‘poised’ because the NHS had not officially released anything. Surely, being clear that this was not an official announcement is the accurate way to have phrased it.

Was there something in Nick Wallis’ article that he got wrong?

Does this mean we should also ignore any article Julie Bindel and Jo Bartosch publish in the Daily Mail?

Good to know.

Er, which news outlets are virtuous enough these days? The BBC? The Guardian?

Good grief. The snobbery just drips off the page.

This is exactly why we are where we are.

I would think someone who had access to one of the internal documents sent it to Nick Wallis now that Nick is know to be focused on this issue and has reported so far with accuracy (eg the tribunal reporting). Probably to apply pressure to make sure the announcement was made or to keep it on track without significant changes.

It doesn’t look like it has been changed though and maybe his article brought forward the release, or maybe it was always scheduled as a press release announcement for publication today.

@YourNavyFinch so is the Guardian palatable enough for you? The paper that suppressed ethnicity of the men who attacked women in Cologne on NYE. The paper that repeatedly called a black woman a bigot for objecting to a naked trans identified man in the spa she was in, who turned out to be a serial sex offender?

The Mail has a political slant. But so does the Guardian. They have been appalling on this issue. The Mail have been consistently better.

What Tayto said.

Nick Wallis is a brilliant journalist.

So, the ‘evidence is weak’ but also NHS are launching a consultation……

We don’t have consultations about other drug regimes, we expect the NHS to follow the evidence. Why not in this case 🙄

I don't think it's snobbery by Navy Finch at all, it's same old boring "oooh TERFS are all right wing bigots"

look at how the OP is phrased about could someone show show them the evidence against puberty blockers

they don't have time to reply but we should enjoy the discussion in their absence

plus time of posting suggests a transatlantic or Australian visitor

im somewhat 🤨🧐

The Beeb is hardly unbiased, though it claims to be.

@YourNavyFinch
Not enough evidence, in this case, it's not waffle.
Several systematic reviews of evidence have been conducted in these last 5 years, commissioned by different health authorities: Finland and the NHS to name just two.
A systematic review gathers and scores the medical papers about e.g. a therapy and follows precise rules: the inclusion and exclusion criteria and term of search are declared in advance, and make the list of scientific papers reproducible.
Then it scores the quality of each paper: from randomized to perspective down to case reports.
It investigates things like how reputable the scales to measure e.g. psychological improvement are (some are more thorough than others).
It evaluates the length of follow up (evaluations conducted two months after treatment can be very different from two years and so on).
It evaluates how many people are followed up, and how many are still included in the study at the end of it. (This is definitely a problem in this field, loss to follow up is often around 30%, which is very high).
I'm the end, it weights all these components and, in a rigorous way, it draws conclusions on the robustness of the data.
As an aside, if I remember correctly, NICE attempted two systematic reviews of surgery and hormones for adults a few years back and found poor evidence. Whilr many reviews have been published recently on interventions for minors, I would love to see new reviews on adults.

You could be right. The coloured finch is not posting only from snobbery but the continued attempt to align those questioning medical treatment standards for children with far right groups to discredit them. But perhaps intellectual snobbery is partly the motivation too.

I admit to sniggering when I read that the NHS was supposedly not political.

I like that the BBC isn't afraid to call them "cross-sex" hormones. The thread title just calls them "cross" hormones, and I had been wondering if this was a typo or the current form of fashionable obfuscation.

Re the guardian apparently shying away even from the word "cross", are they going to zap "trans" too, which means exactly the same?

It's another brick fallen from this wall of transitioning vulnerable, mentally unwell children & youn people isn't it?
Interesting that they'll be listening to "advocacy groups". Long overdue that there were some deep dives into the hard drives of all the adult AGP men who are over interested in ensuring that these young people get access to such harmful drugs. They've escaped scrutiny for far too long for their lack of concern for safeguarding children..

Actually, I've jusr seen that the guardian does used the term 'cross-sex' at one point, although that may just be a pullover from NHS England, whose statement they are conveying,just not as a formal quote.

That is very positive. A tiny thing, but (absurdly) something that may have been disallowed in the past

What a ridiculous comment. The mail might be a right wing rag but some journalists who write for them are the only ones covering these stories.

The “lack of evidence” bit is disingenuous.

What no one is reporting, because they’re too frightened to admit it, is that the hideous effects of testosterone on the female system are well known and documented and someone somewhere has finally seen the many lawsuits coming against the NHS down the line.

True. Baby steps.

Was it the Guardian that changed a direct quote from a rape victim to use ‘her’ for the male rapist? I’ve got a feeling it was but someone with a better memory may be able to confirm.

Yes, the DM has been brave enough to publish some really big stories on this topic. It has its issues but at least it doesn’t pretend to be righteous and then blatantly lie to protect gender ideology.

If this goes ahead, the terrible study on puberty blockers will be even more of a mess. They will all have to go through puberty at the end of the trial period.