Hilary Cass sent a document to every single MP and Peer, justifying and defending the puberty blockers trial

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/2075512549248745744?s=20

There are ten images on X, sorry can't add them all here, or upload a file with it all in.

What I cannot understand is how the former 2 1/2 year old being told they were the opposite sex all their life by their parents, who now that he is 11 needs puberty blockers to prevent himself and school peers from knowing the truth, will be matched with a trial double.

To do so shouldn’t they have other similarly raised parent-transed- as- toddler 11 year old boys, some of whom would receive placebos under the trial, and some of whom would have psychological help while they come to terms with the truth and perhaps go to a new school etc as their true sex.

But none of that will happen.

Not only did the Tavistock cohort go down the PB route, but their use at the Tavistock started as a clinical trial! And then quietly, with no fanfare, more and more kids were prescribed them and the trial aspect slipped away.

And yet somehow this won’t happen again.

Excellent points. From a safeguarding children perspective, it blows my mind to see anyone arguing that we'll just sterilise and potentially impair the brain and body development of a small number of children as it will benefit the greater number in the long run.
Sadly that's what Cass & others seem to be arguing. It's not an argument I'd ever make, but as we know, this area does appear to be an ethics free zone in terms of harming children.

No, definitely won't happen again.
Medical scandals are always reported, learnt from. Of course they are.
We always go forwards, to better outcomes based on superior info and data.
This is like the lobotomy scandal and reclaimed memories cults.
But in some ways worse, we moved on (sometimes to other horrible outcomes, but sometimes to more enlightenment) from those, but this PB trial means things haven't been learnt from The Tavistock and the horrors of WPATH bad medicine, the medical profession is still ideologically captured, the arrogance of doctors is as bad as ever, now with the cover of trying to mend social ills and uphold minority rights.

Surely the trial designers would want the results of the data linkage study, incomplete as they may be, to help to inform the trial design. It really feels like they are putting the cart before the horse.

Yes.

Finland knows that almost all children given puberty blockers go on to cross sex hormones; but, conversely, almost all gender questioning children who do not get puberty blockers desist.

Really?
I feel so sick about this.

It's baffling to me that people who can be laser-focused on pointing out potential issues with the puberty blockers trial can at the same time think that the data linkage study could possibly provide anything of statistical value.

Either you care about good data collection or you don't.

The original trial was turned down by the ethics committee so they kept going until a different committee said yes.

They then completely disregarded their own age limits.

And the guy that did all this, ended up as president of the royal college of paediatricians. After cass had ended her time as president.

They are all in on it.

Nobody thinks the linkage study will have any evidence of success, that's the point. If there was, they would be shouting from the rooftops.

I understand where you’re coming from.

But, if one of my undergraduate students had written a proposal for a project in which they intended to collect new data, but refused to even consider a brief examination of extant data, no matter how poor that extant data was, I would be having a serious talk with that student.

You have to grapple with all the data. You cannot just say “well my data will be better than the old data” - particularly when no one has even been able to see, let alone examine, the old data. Even if you end up saying, yes, the old data was insufficient, we need new data, you still have to look at the old data and establish this.

But that is what's planned to happen. There's a planned Pathways study where the ones on puberty blockers on the trial are matched to kids not on puberty blockers and receiving other interventions.

Indeed. There are reasons the data's been deliberately concealed by the self interested medics / transactivists who run the adult services.

The idea that data collection takes priority over safeguarding children is quite an astounding argument

It's not just insufficient, it's useless. We know that the gender clinics were shit at collecting data. How can you possibly draw any conclusions about the impact of a medication on mental health or whatever if you didn't collect data about their mental health before they went on any medication? Let alone whether they were on any other medication at the same time.

And if we know that those on puberty blockers mostly went onto cross-sex hormones, how can you possibly isolate any impact of puberty blockers from the impact of the hormones?

They allow parents to refuse blood transfusions for children on religious grounds but I can't think of any case where the NHS will do an active intervention that supports a belief.

In the UK parents absolutely do NOT have a right to refuse a blood transfusion for their child on religious grounds. The interests of the child are paramount. If a child needs a blood transfusion they will be given one. In an emergency this will be done pragmatically simply ignoring the parents wishes. If it's not an emergency then NHS Trusts may go to court to endorse the need for a transfusion but that's not strictly necessary.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48868210

Perhaps revealing other details of qualification preferences risks patient privacy or maybe they left it more open to assess which kind of candidates were most likely to benefit.

More likely they don't want to give away information that allows parents & children to game the system like the TRAs on Reddit already coaching people what to tell their doctors.

This is true, though there is no placebo as PP suggested, because a child would soon realise that their puberty has not been stopped. Also, the 'matched' children do not want (or, for some of them, do not qualify for) PBs and so are not a perfect match for the children who want PBs.

Nobody except a believer has an internal gender identity. Sex is not assigned at birth it's fixed at conception & recorded at birth.

My understanding is that a gender identity is like a soul in that it is only possessed by those who believe humans have souls (not me for a start!).

I had the impression that Dr Cass brought up that transed-at-2 1/2 boy who is now 11, meaning he might be in the puberty blicking trial.

Are you meaning that, if he is indeed put forward, they will find other boys for whom this also happened as toddlers, who are now 11, who are from a similar background, and matched in every way, in order to compare outcomes for them all through puberty blockers, or placebos, or psychological approaches?

If so, I am not sure how they can find enough candidates for a large enough cohort to match exactly, and was doubting they intended to try. If you are right, then my previous point was misplaced..

The transed-at-2 boy was fictional. Cass admitted this in her letter to MPs and lords. Supposedly she had been told about such children in the course of conducting the review, but that particular child does not exist.

Your concern, however, remains valid.

Again to go back in time, what we do know is the concept of Gender Identity was made up by a paedophile 'clinician' to castrate a boy whose foreskin was burnt off in an accident, to justify the castration and his experiment to make his parents bring him up as a girl. Nobody should be paying this sick mind game on kids.

There is something else in the letter which is bothering me. Cass says, in regards to the 'Jo' children 'Even with input from the very skilled therapists in the new services, encouraging them to think more flexibly about their identity is rarely successful, regardless of what their natural trajectory would have been if they had not been socially transitioned at that very early stage.' (Bottom p5 and top p6)
Has there really been enough time since the setting up of these new services for therapy to be fully explored with these children? Surely undoing many years of damage is the work of many years of therapy? Has there been time for an assessment of why it worked for some and not for others? What is meant by 'what their natural trajectory would have been'? Does it mean girl/boy? If so, that means there are some girls in this cohort, which definitely does not follow the 'true trans' narrative, which is always males.
More questions than answers, I fear.

Edit SPaG

Oh I see, you want an exact match.

Kids on the puberty blocker trial are matched to kids not on the trial but not that extensively, to compare brain scans etc.

Within the trial presumably they’ll have at least some of these ‘living in stealth’ kids who will be randomised to either getting the blockers now or in a year’s time so there’ll be some comparison.

@Tottenhamhotflushes I just wanted to challenge your statements that taking HRT presents a high risk of strokes, cancer and heart problems.

I don't need to know your own medical history, but it's simply not the case that HRT, especially if the oestrogen is transdermal, and especially if the progesterone is micronised eg Utrogestan, or in the form of the Mirena Coil, presents a high risk of any of these problems in most women.

I just wanted to say this to you, because you seem to have presented a false equivalence between HRT and puberty blockers.

https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/hormone-replacement-therapy-hrt/benefits-and-risks-of-hormone-replacement-therapy-hrt/

and for breast cancer specifically:

https://thebms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/01-NEW-INFOGRAPHICS-NOV2025-C.pdf

Apologies if I have misunderstood, and you have a particularly high background risk for any of these disorders yet have decided to take HRT anyway (as is your right).

Ah OK. I'm pleased to be wrong on that one.

Thank you for confirming.

As a non-believer in anything (but ghosts) I do find it concerning when religious beliefs are accommodated in healthcare when it impacts the health of the individual, particularly when they are a child. It's good to see safeguarding coming first in that example, just as it does with FGM.

FGM for adults is totally OK though, as long as the adult's belief is in gender identity. Adult females can have all sorts done, including using their labia to make an approximation of a scrotum and having the opening of their vaginas sewn up, as long as they believe they are men. FFS.