The BMA’s shameful support for puberty blockers

In response to Dr Hilary Cass’s scathing review of gender-identity services in England and Wales earlier this year, the then Conservative government banned puberty blockers for under-18s. Last week, the High Court rejected an appeal from trans activists against the ban, stating that it is lawful. New health secretary Wes Streeting welcomed the High Court’s decision, noting that there is ‘insufficient evidence that puberty blockers are safe and effective’ for gender-confused children.

Yet it seems the British Medical Association (BMA), the influential UK doctors’ union, disagrees. Last week, it called on the Labour government to lift the ban, and voted in favour of a motion to ‘publicly critique’ the Cass Review.

This is a worrying move on the part of the BMA. As Mrs Justice Lang put it at the High Court last week, the Cass Review found ‘very substantial risks and very narrow benefits associated with the use of puberty blockers’. Yet the BMA still seems intent on allowing this risky, ineffective treatment to be used on children. Whatever happened to a doctor’s Hippocratic duty to ‘first, do no harm’?

Britain’s politicians must reject the BMA’s objections to the puberty-blocker ban and the Cass Review more broadly. Both represent a significant step forward for the protection of children from the harms of trans ideology. As does Streeting’s willingness to abide by the recommendations of the Cass Review. It shows that a cross-party consensus is beginning to emerge on how to approach and treat gender-confused children.

This should never have been in question, of course. The protection of children should transcend party-political divides. In this case, that means rejecting the idea that children who think they have been born in the wrong body should be ‘affirmed’ in this false belief, and given powerful and harmful drugs as a form of ‘treatment’.

After all, the Cass Review’s verdict on puberty blockers was damning. It showed that they do not improve ‘gender dysphoria or body satisfaction’, that they compromise ‘bone density’, and that they ‘change the trajectory of psychosexual and gender-identity development’. The review also took apart another common claim made by trans activists – namely, that ‘gender-affirming treatment’ leads to a reduced risk of suicide. As the review put it, ‘the evidence does not adequately support’ this claim.

The Cass Review struck a vital blow against trans ideology at a time when its grip elsewhere in the world seems to be tightening. California governor Gavin Newsom recently signed a new bill into law, which prevents school districts from requiring staff members to disclose students’ ‘sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression’ to any other person.

In a recent interview with Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, X owner Elon Musk explained that he had been ‘tricked’ into signing documents that allowed his son to go down the path of gender-affirming treatment. If this could happen to Musk, the world’s richest man, it can surely happen to anyone.

Indeed, faith-based legal-advocacy organisation ADF International, where I am a communications officer, is currently supporting a mother and father in Switzerland, who find themselves in a similar position to Musk.

These Geneva-based parents have been separated by Swiss authorities from their now-16-year-old daughter for over a year because they refused to accept her ‘gender transition’. A Swiss court is forcing them to hand over documents for their daughter’s legal ‘sex change’. The daughter now lives in a government shelter and the parents’ access to her is regulated by the state.

It is a terrifying situation. The teenager, who had been suffering from a range of mental-health problems, first started identifying as the opposite sex in 2021. Her school proceeded to ‘socially transition’ her, against the explicit wishes of her parents. After the parents objected to the school’s decision, the school then contacted the state child-welfare agency and Le Refuge, a government-funded trans-activist organisation.

Like Musk, the parents were falsely told that children who are not ‘affirmed’ have a higher rate of suicide. They were also accused of ‘abusing’ their daughter after they took her to see a therapist to treat her mental-health problems, rather than opting for ‘gender-affirming treatment’.

The parents lost their appeal against the court order to hand over documents for their daughter’s legal ‘sex change’ last month. But, backed by ADF International, the parents are now seeking to appeal the ruling to defend their most basic parental rights to care for their daughter in the face of an oppressive ideology.

As this terrible case shows, gender ideology is not an abstract ‘culture war’ issue. It has a detrimental real-life impact on ordinary people.

Britain is at a crossroads. It can follow the likes of the BMA down the hazardous path of trans ideology. Or it can continue to turn away from discredited, gender-affirming care, defend parental rights and, above all, protect children.

Paul Sapper is a communications officer at ADF International. Follow him on X: @spsapper.