Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Debate on the puberty blocker trial this afternoon, 23rd June

116 replies

RoseInAPot · 23/06/2026 10:16

Opposition day debates today, instigated by the LOTO Kemi Badenoch. She has chosen two issues: defence, and the puberty blocker trial.

Sometime this afternoon, will be worth a watch.

Debate on the puberty blocker trial this afternoon, 23rd June
OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
RoseInAPot · 23/06/2026 13:35

LibDems already disrupting with an amendment: (see screenshot)

https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/105341/Html?subType=Standard#_idTextAnchor004

Debate on the puberty blocker trial this afternoon, 23rd June
OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/06/2026 13:46

Ooh, but I have to go out!

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 23/06/2026 13:58

RoseInAPot · 23/06/2026 13:35

LibDems already disrupting with an amendment: (see screenshot)

https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/105341/Html?subType=Standard#_idTextAnchor004

That "amendment" is laughable. So the Lib Dems basically want to have a debate about something else entirely! 🙄

CrystallisedGinger · 23/06/2026 14:26

Thank OP. Looking forward to it.
whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal55909

happydappy2 · 23/06/2026 14:36

there is absolutely no justification to giving a confused, unhappy child, puberty blockers.....the harm they cause is lifelong

Zoonosis · 23/06/2026 15:58

happydappy2 · 23/06/2026 14:36

there is absolutely no justification to giving a confused, unhappy child, puberty blockers.....the harm they cause is lifelong

There is no evidence they cause long term harm. Even Cass says this:

"Speaking to the BBC, Dr Cass said she believes since then "some of the hype about risks have been exaggerated in that we genuinely don't know if there are harms."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5njnn8k8o

If they were harmful, these harms would become apparent in the children and adults who are prescribed the same medication for other conditions, and yet mysteriously they don't.

Dame Hilary Cass is sat looking at the camera in a meeting room. She is in front of a glass wall with a geometric pattern.

Puberty blocker trial will help reduce harm, says Cass report author

Dr Hilary Cass says she is "absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don't do the trial than if we do."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5njnn8k8o

moto748e · 23/06/2026 16:01

If they were harmful, these harms would become apparent in the children and adults who are prescribed the same medication for other conditions, and yet mysteriously they don't.

With respect, I don't think I'd be taking medical advice from you. PBs are not Smarties.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 23/06/2026 16:02

Zoonosis · 23/06/2026 15:58

There is no evidence they cause long term harm. Even Cass says this:

"Speaking to the BBC, Dr Cass said she believes since then "some of the hype about risks have been exaggerated in that we genuinely don't know if there are harms."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5njnn8k8o

If they were harmful, these harms would become apparent in the children and adults who are prescribed the same medication for other conditions, and yet mysteriously they don't.

Not this again.

we genuinely don't know if there are harms.

So, let's experiment on children until we find out if it harms them or not.

You have no problem with that?

Scout2016 · 23/06/2026 16:05

We do know they cause harm, from when they have been used for just a few years for precocious puberty. We have evidence from those patients.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 23/06/2026 16:05

Zoonosis · 23/06/2026 15:58

There is no evidence they cause long term harm. Even Cass says this:

"Speaking to the BBC, Dr Cass said she believes since then "some of the hype about risks have been exaggerated in that we genuinely don't know if there are harms."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5njnn8k8o

If they were harmful, these harms would become apparent in the children and adults who are prescribed the same medication for other conditions, and yet mysteriously they don't.

If they were harmful, these harms would become apparent in the children and adults who are prescribed the same medication for other conditions, and yet mysteriously they don't.

We're talking about possible harms to healthy children.

This is not about prescribing drugs to children who might have a genuine need for them (e.g. precocious puberty)

AndresyFiorella · 23/06/2026 16:08

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

spannasaurus · 23/06/2026 16:14

The defence debate seems to be finishing now so I expect the puberty blocker debate to start shortly

OldCrone · 23/06/2026 16:16

Zoonosis · 23/06/2026 15:58

There is no evidence they cause long term harm. Even Cass says this:

"Speaking to the BBC, Dr Cass said she believes since then "some of the hype about risks have been exaggerated in that we genuinely don't know if there are harms."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5njnn8k8o

If they were harmful, these harms would become apparent in the children and adults who are prescribed the same medication for other conditions, and yet mysteriously they don't.

Cass believes without a trial young people will continue to get drugs from "unregulated and dangerous routes."
"Today we have young people turning up in the clinics on testosterone at 11, which we know is irreversible," she said.
"It may be that if they were prescribed puberty blockers instead, that would give more time for the therapist to work with them and perhaps come to a different solution than a long-term life on medication."

How are 11-year-old children getting hold of drugs from "unregulated and dangerous routes"? Where are they getting the money to buy them? This should be treated in the same way as if they were obtaining any other illegal drugs. If their parents are buying them for them, the parents should be arrested, as should the people selling them.

Her reasoning about it being more harmful for children not to be prescribed hormone blockers seems to be based on the assumption that they will get them, or hormones, from unregulated sources. Is there any other condition where prescribing a drug for children is done purely to prevent them from obtaining them, or other more dangerous drugs, illegally?

EasternStandard · 23/06/2026 16:19

Good on her. At least someone isn’t saying it’s fine.

JellySaurus · 23/06/2026 16:20

Zoonosis · 23/06/2026 15:58

There is no evidence they cause long term harm. Even Cass says this:

"Speaking to the BBC, Dr Cass said she believes since then "some of the hype about risks have been exaggerated in that we genuinely don't know if there are harms."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5njnn8k8o

If they were harmful, these harms would become apparent in the children and adults who are prescribed the same medication for other conditions, and yet mysteriously they don't.

One of the harms they cause is that they prevent the child from healthy development. There is plenty of evidence for this. It is the entire purpose for which they are prescribed to these children.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/06/2026 16:26

Mysteriously they do. Check out some of the drugs, particularly Lupron. They do cause well documented harm. Adults are recommended to take them for the shortest time possible. https://www.chelwest.nhs.uk/your-visit/patient-leaflets/medicine-services/gonadotropin-releasing-agonists

JellySaurus · 23/06/2026 16:29

GNRH agonists are prescribed for as short a period as possible to children with precocious puberty in an attempt to arrest unhealthy development and restore healthy development.

They are prescribed to adults with certain cancers in an attempt to arrest unhealthy development of the cancer and restore health.

It is deeply unethical to prescribe these drugs to healthy children in order to deliberately arrest their healthy development and deny them the opportunity to develop healthy adolescent and adult bodies. It denies them their RIGHT to develop healthy adolescent and adult bodies.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/06/2026 16:33

They’re also prescribed to women for a host of hormone exacerbated conditions such as fibroids and endemetriosis, and also for IVF in some cases. Again for the shortest time possible because they are recognised as having a lot of side effects.

Seethlaw · 23/06/2026 16:33

Zoonosis · 23/06/2026 15:58

There is no evidence they cause long term harm. Even Cass says this:

"Speaking to the BBC, Dr Cass said she believes since then "some of the hype about risks have been exaggerated in that we genuinely don't know if there are harms."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5njnn8k8o

If they were harmful, these harms would become apparent in the children and adults who are prescribed the same medication for other conditions, and yet mysteriously they don't.

How can you reduce something that doesn't exist? The very use of "reduce" necessarily means that the harm is already there. So even Cass admits that these drugs are harmful.

GrandmaMazur · 23/06/2026 16:38

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

I've PMed you

spannasaurus · 23/06/2026 16:40

The debate has just started

fanOfBen · 23/06/2026 16:42

Gene therapy?! Wonder where that came from.

Seethlaw · 23/06/2026 16:46

fanOfBen · 23/06/2026 16:42

Gene therapy?! Wonder where that came from.

Eh?? In relation to trans kids/people? How does that work??

fanOfBen · 23/06/2026 16:49

I think the member concerned had perhaps simply misheard "GNRH" for "gene". I suppose if you ignorantly imagine it's possible for people to change sex and you know sex has something to do with genes you might imagine we were giving them gene therapy to help them change sex... but it's hard to imagine being that ignorant and choosing to display the fact in the House of Commons. However, I suppose we select our MPs for being willing to do that kind of thing!

Seethlaw · 23/06/2026 16:54

fanOfBen · 23/06/2026 16:49

I think the member concerned had perhaps simply misheard "GNRH" for "gene". I suppose if you ignorantly imagine it's possible for people to change sex and you know sex has something to do with genes you might imagine we were giving them gene therapy to help them change sex... but it's hard to imagine being that ignorant and choosing to display the fact in the House of Commons. However, I suppose we select our MPs for being willing to do that kind of thing!

I want to say, "Thank you for the explanation," but the idea that anyone out there would really believe that humans can change sex hurts my brain 😭