House of Lords discussing puberty blockers and age of consent

[ItsCoolForCats]

Currently on Parliament TV. Prof Winston was just talking and I only caught the end of it and wasn't quite sure what he was trying to say. Something about environment factors affecting DNA...

The actual debate was 22 October. Baroness Deech raised the issue of proponents of the trial wanting it to go ahead because otherwise people will purchase the drugs online. She said the small number of children participating in the trial will have no impact on whether people think these drugs should be purchased online.

My take is that this trial is for the benefit of parents who are convinced their child is in the wrong body and won't stop at anything to get drugs to block their puberty. Maybe Cass thinks it is only if we have solid evidence that these drugs cause harm that these type of parents can be dissuaded.

Baroness Meyer (Conservative) is now speaking about her concerns about the trials.

Baroness Murphy, like Baroness Cash, made the case for "true transexuals", meaning the original demographic who used to present with gender distress (I think approx 50/60 a year). They seem to think this very small cohort should be able to access medical treatments. But the genie is out of the bottle now. If you make these drugs available for one small cohort, it is inevitable that others will be clamouring to get them too.

Crazy that referrals have gone from 1 in 60,000 to 1 in 1200

And there was a really great comment from Lord Frost who is not of the view that a child can be in the wrong body and needs their body changed instead of their beliefs. He said that if the government's conversion bill was passed, he might get in trouble for saying that.

Some people want the House of Lords abolished, but the Lords make a great deal of sense, much of the time.

Most of the discussion seemed sensible, apart from the woman who said they'll be coming for the gays next and it's all being funded by groups in the US.

Noooo!!! Who said that?

I can't remember her name. She is a Labour peer. She seems to have got her arguments from Reddit.

😂 sorry I had to laugh, you no sooner said that, then up comes a reason for those who want the place abolished, a dim witted, clueless, unhinged Labour peer. 😂

I agree with Lord Frost, it's the belief that needs changing not the body. 👏

Is this different to the existing thread here? https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5589060-hormone-treatments-and-age-consent-government-policy

Confusing.

I wonder if people like the aforementioned Labour MP genuinely do think the things they come out with, (it'll be gay people next, funded by Christian right in US) or are they just parrotting 'right think', in order to be seen to be saying something?

Because those specious arguments are wearily familiar to anyone questioning the trans ideology.

This is the debate.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2026-10-22/debates/6AEF0EB6-954C-43C0-8F9B-34C5F7783A95/PubertyBlockersAndCross-SexHormones

I recently met someone who sits in the House of Lords. They feel this Bill is very worrying, with a real risk that normal parental behaviour, including "watchful waiting" could be criminalised. The impression is that the Government is trying to rush this one through, when there are so many aspects that need careful consideration, not least the worrying correlations between a feeling you are in the wrong body and autism or abuse.

The HoL is stacked with Labour worthies. I hope they are brave enough to listen to their own instincts rather than rely on the party line/party activists.

Unfortunately it won't matter, there were many excellent points made about the GRA by people in the HoL and still the Labour government of the day voted it into law. The government wants this law, it's a manifesto pledge, it also brings them inline with the EU Blob, so no matter how many excellent points get made, they all be ignored. It's the Labour MP's we need to be brave enough to listen to their own instincts rather than rely on the party line/party activists.