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

NHS England pauses new referrals for masculinising or feminising hormone treatment in under-18s

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

As written an uninformed reader might imagine the treatments being used for e.g. biologically male children who are 'not quite masculine enough' and require masculinising treatment to reach their full potential.

I was wondering about this. The timing is really interesting. Why now? Wes put a question mark over paediatric x-sex hormones last year, so what has pushed it to the forefront now? It feels very ... connected.

Next steps (in medicine) - to ban x-sex hormones for kids in private clinics. To put into place the 17-25 yo clinics as recommended by Cass and accepted by the gvt/nhse. To gain some proper outcome data (data linkage, if even possible, and prospective for adults). To stop NHS 'gender marker' changes.

Must admit, I do use 'masculinising and feminising hormones' for neutrality (and professional audiences), though accept it could be confusing. Better than 'HRT' though!!

They won't have banned virilising/feminising treatment for children with DSDs. "Cross-sex" is the neutral term and the Guardian is being obfuscatory.

I am amazed that the NHS funds cross sex hormones for anyone, considering the state the NHS is in, certainly not children!
The Graun is deliberately obfuscating this but what's new?

People might not understand the use of 'cross sex hormones' just like some people get confused with ' transwoman' and 'transman' ?? As has been seen before

But they should be aiming to go through puberty after the trial duration anyway? Unless the pb trial is admitting that its entire purpose is to literally cancel puberty and the patient is to process into x sex hormones automatically.

That’s the bit I’m a little confused about in the pb trial, surely there is a projected end date/reassessment for the medication of these kids or are they just saying all kids entering the trial are embarking on a lifetime of medication, end of?

I should imagine The Guardian have gone with that headline because talking about cross sex hormones too obviously states the biological reality that there are 2 sexes and this may be upsetting for some delusional people to hear 😁

I dont want to side track the issue any more but ... as has been said so many times on FWR we wouldn't be having to use right wing news outlets if the so called left and liberal press bothered to report on women's sex based rights.

It is because of the total failure by them to actually just do their job which means more often than not a story of importance to women is broken by the right wing press. If not the DM the Daily Telegraph.

When and if they start reporting stories of importance to women then they would feature in any number of OPs.

Isn't it depressing that all those sanctimonious portals of left liberalism are of no use and give no support to the attack on women's sex based rights.

And wouldn't need to write this post yet again.

Just to add I agree with OP that I think the BBC has tried to just report.

And actually think in this instance that dont need to do that whole balance thing of getting quotes from campaign groups.

They could do that as an opinion piece.

This is a medical issue that needs to be explained and made clear so that when the histrionic start about the most oppressed people, the average reader will have the facts firmly in their mind.

Agreed.

I was fortunate enough to have a conversation with someone senior in the NHS (regionally, not nationally) and one of the most memorable moments was when I referred to what we already know about the impact of testosterone on the female body. I gave some stats around incontinence (95%), mentioned early menopause and cardiac risk.... and said that it's obvious if you think about it.... I could see he did think about it at that exact moment because his face immediately drained of colour. He composed himself very quickly after that, I pretended not to have noticed and the conversation continued.

Interestingly, I had only said it as a footnote example to illustrate a wider point I was making about mental health, adolescents and why children with autism might struggle with puberty (e.g. sensory issues re breast development and periods, or how uncomfortable it feels for your body and emotions that were previously so reliable to be changing). My words were something like "it's important for health professionals to remember what they already know". Using the impact of testosterone on a female body was simply a way to make that concept more tangible.

They know that they already know.... and I imagine having that penny drop (if it hasn't already, perhaps because inclusion seemed so much more important) is a very uncomfortable feeling. The most important thing though is what those senior people do next, after the penny has dropped. Hopefully enough of them are finding each other and finding ways to be a part of stopping what is so obviously harmful. I didn't need this person to tell me he was feeling uncomfortable but I very much hope he has decided to be a part of the solution.

Thank goodness. Children need to be protected from this nonsense. Young and vulnerable adults too. It should be over 25 as a bare minimum.

Actually, a thought just struck me. I wonder if someone has had sight of data from the adult gender clinics, the stuff they wouldn’t release? Or perhaps not, as more likely it doesn’t exist, given the general carelessness around such record keeping.

The thought that struck me relates to the recent Green Party win. Are Labour aiming to centre themselves as the safeguarding party, exposing the Greens as the only party in favour of feeding children and young adults into the puberty blockers to cross-sex hormones and surgery pathway?

The Lib Dems are also fully supportive of this pathway from what I can see. But your point is still an interesting one.

Labour could be playing a long game like this, where they pivot in such a way that they can frame it as "we've always been about safeguarding, it just took time for everything to come together".

It does feel a bit like Streeting and Phillipson are handing out little crumbs every now and then. Perhaps they're banking on us all feeling so much Stockholm Syndrome that we'll convince ourselves that they led the way towards sanity.

They definitely should be banned in private clinics

https://archive.ph/F93eJ

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/10/money-made-giving-children-trans-hormones-nhs-health/

That is an optimistic take on the matter, I suspect. The main battle within the Labour party now is resisting it being dragged to the Left by all of those MPs who are still fully committed to TWAW. And let's not forget that Gender Self ID was in the Labour party manifesto before the last election.

It does feel a bit like Streeting and Phillipson are handing out little crumbs every now and then. Perhaps they're banking on us all feeling so much Stockholm Syndrome that we'll convince ourselves that they led the way towards sanity.

I imagine that most of the public could be convinced of that. It's only those of us who have spent blood and treasure on this who will remember what really happened.

The recent Sex Matters survey showed Labour voters and young people have the highest proportion of TWAW thinkers (even more so than LD and Green voters, albeit still <50% of respondents). Couple that with the capture of the unions and the public/charity sector, and the party might actually be worried about popular support and not just its own MPs.

What we could really do with off the back of this, especially considering what I’ve seen in comments online about turning to an unregulated black market, is for hormones to be made a Class C controlled substance. As the definition of a controlled substance is anything with the potential for abuse, this now seems a logical move. Dodgy private providers and back alley titty skittle purveyors need to be put under serious scrutiny and face prosecution.

Testosterone is an anabolic steroid thus a known drug of abuse which is why it is already a Class C controlled substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act. However unlike other Class C drugs possession of testosterone for personal use is not illegal but trafficking testosterone is punishable with up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.

True, but this isn't TWAW. This is giving powerful medications with heart-stopping side-effects to children, for reasons that cannot even be clearly articulated.
On the PB trial, for example, Transgender Trend polling shows that even potential Green Party voters are in two minds. In fact, given the statement 'For under-16s with gender dysphoria, services should focus on psychological and mental health support rather than medical interventions' 64% of GP voters agree (21% disagree). For potential Labour voters it is 71%:11%.

https://www.whitestoneinsight.com/puberty-blockers

All parties will be aware that the public is quick to turn on anyone who can be shown to have knowingly harmed children.

Why would you not highlight a Dailymail article if the information is correct? Do you disregard truthful information if it comes from sources you don't like? Don't you find yourself a bit blinded by ideology? How far does your purity go - for instance, would you believe non-truthful information from sources you do like? The Guardian has spread a lot of misinformation and lies by omission about women's rights and has even gone so far as to censor female journalists. In your view, is posting a link to the Guardian here okay despite all that?

To be clear, I am a left-winger and most of the Guardian's viewpoints are much more to my liking than the Dailymail's. But the left doesn't give a s* about women. Ever since this whole gender-woo started, they could not have been clearer if they'd said so. The Dailymail on the other hand was on women's side. Are they true believers in women's rights? I have no idea. Fact is, their reporting has made a huge difference to public perception of this problem.

Of course the unions/charities/many MPs have now mostly become platforms for political agitators and activists and no longer really represent their membership, let alone the general public.

This article is heartbreaking and pertinent

https://archive.ph/9rtjN

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/stop-giving-my-child-trans-hormones-mother-pleads/

Eta

It's not unknown for divorced parents to use their children as weapons, children have been murdered by men to get back at their former partners. This seems a form of the same abuse

“They could have protected kids like mine,” she added. “I’ve met so many other parents that are in almost identical situations, where their ex-partner has taken their child, alienated them from them deliberately, and ‘trans’d’ them. And these kids are now lifelong patients. They’re being used as weapons against loving parents.”

Why is it that the right wing ideology is always perceived to be bad even when calling out harmful left wing ideology 🤷🏼‍♀️