Genspect Statement on the Puberty Blocker Trial Dr Hilary Cass’s recent remarks in the House of Lords raise profoundly troubling questions about the proposed puberty blocker trial, particularly her description of children who have been socially transitioned since early childhood and who, after 18 months of therapy, still have “absolutely no sense or concept of living in their biological gender.” We believe it is harmful to socially transition a two-year-old. There is no established evidence base to support our point of view, as this radical intervention has not been adequately studied. Our objection, however, is an ethical judgment informed by what we know about child development and by a duty of care and responsibility towards very young children. Deontology recognises that some acts are fundamentally right or wrong. We do not need to wait for evidence of harm before questioning whether it is ethically acceptable for adults to impose a gender identity on a two-year-old. Most of all, we are extremely concerned by Cass’s language about “living in their biological gender.” A child who has been socially transitioned since early childhood is entering therapy from a contradictory starting point. Why was this transition initiated, and what role might it have played in shaping or reinforcing the child’s distress? Cass’s account does not explain how a socially transitioned child could somehow resolve their gender dysphoria through therapy while continuing to live within the social transition that may have reinforced it. We should not treat a child’s difficulty imagining life in their own sex as proof that they cannot live in it. We welcome the news that fewer than 20 of the 1,600 children seen are even being considered for the trial. Fewer children will be exposed to the possibility of harm. But the number does not make the decision unimportant, and it does not relieve the Government, clinicians or researchers of their responsibility to scrutinise it. We note that Dr Cass blurs two different questions about consent. Under-16s can consent to treatment if they are Gillick competent; the Court of Appeal said competence must be assessed individually, not by age rules. A trial’s requirement for parental consent and a young person’s assent is a separate research safeguard. It does not overturn Gillick or answer the wider question of whether the trial is justified. Cass treats the court ruling as a reason the Government cannot take a view. The Court of Appeal rejected the lower court’s age-based guidance. It did not rule that the Government must stay out of debate about the trial, its evidence or its policy. “We do not know of any definite irreversible effects” is not evidence that there are none. She acknowledges that the effects are uncertain, then leans on monitoring and the two-year limit as reassurance. Monitoring can identify problems; it cannot necessarily reverse them. The testosterone-at-the-gym line also sets up a false choice. The alternative to joining the trial is not necessarily obtaining hormones illicitly. It could be continued psychological and family support, or waiting while more evidence is gathered. The central problem remains unresolved. We are considering exposing children to medical interventions whose long-term consequences are uncertain, when there is existing data from the previous puberty blockers trial that has yet to be examined. A child’s inability to imagine living in their own sex is not evidence that doing so is impossible. Nor should the decisions made by adults to socially transition their very young children become the justification for puberty blockers for these children. These children are likely to grow up to be same-sex attracted if they don’t medically transition. Many are neuro diverse. These children deserve the highest standard of care, not to have their puberty blocked as part of a reckless and incoherent clinical trial. hansard.parliament.uk/lords/…

The Genspect team has been having a great time at @acadofideas Battle of Ideas this weekend! @ThoughtfulTs @marcuse99903226 @sueevansprotect @hartleythinking @Jaco_v_Z

We welcome trans-identified, trans-medicalised, trans regretters, detransitioners, those harmed by transition and everyone in between at our @BeyondTransHelp free support meetings. We don’t require anyone to stop hormones, or to believe in any theory; we just offer support

Genspect, @SpeechUnion, and @christianorguk have penned a joint open letter after deputy principal speaker Caral Ni Chuilin silenced a comment about how many genders the new Conversion Therapy Bill applies to. “Given the significant public interest in this bill, we would welcome clear guidance from the chair confirming that members may probe both the meaning and the scope of ‘gender identity’ as used in the bill.” Read more at the link in our replies. ⬇️

🇮🇪 Shocking: The Deputy Speaker in Stormont has just shut down debate about what gender identity is again.