NZ and Oz the time to start talking about the UK Puberty Blocker trial - is NOW.

Why Australians and New Zealanders Must Pay Attention to the UK “Pathways” Puberty Blocker Trial Watch

1/ Many people in Australia and New Zealand assume that what is happening in the UK around puberty blockers is interesting, but not immediately relevant to us.

That assumption is wrong.

What happens with the UK Pathways puberty blocker trial will almost certainly be used to influence:

* whether New Zealand’s current pause on new prescriptions continues or is lifted,

* whether Australian states (including Queensland) hold firm or reopen prescribing,

* and whether “mandatory gender affirmation” regains authority in schools, health systems, and child protection.

This is why people fighting for evidence-based care, parental rights, and child safeguarding must understand what this trial actually is — and what it is not.

2/ What Is Being Claimed — and Why It’s Misleading

The Pathways trial is being presented internationally as:

> “The responsible evidence-building step recommended by the Cass Review.”

But when you look closely — as Sex Matters and Transgender Trend have done — that claim does not hold up (Please follow up on the links below).

3/ What the Trial Actually Does

The trial plans to:

* recruit **226 children aged 10–16**,

* give all of them puberty blockers,

* compare **“blockers now” vs “blockers later”**,

* track them for a short period using **self-reported mood questionnaires**.

4/ What it does *not* do:

* It does not compare blockers with *no blockers*.

* It does not test whether blockers resolve gender distress long-term.

* It does not assess adult outcomes like fertility, sexual function, bone health, cognition, or regret.

* It does not answer whether most children would have desisted without medical intervention.

In plain terms:

The study cannot tell us whether puberty blockers are beneficial — only whether children feel temporarily better after receiving something they strongly wanted.

That’s not evidence. That’s just confirmation bias built into a study design.

5/ Both New Zealand and parts of Australia have paused or restricted puberty blockers precisely because:

* the evidence base is weak,

* long-term outcomes are unknown,

* and harms may be irreversible.

If the UK trial proceeds and is later cited as “proof of benefit”, it will almost certainly be used by:

* activist clinicians,

* education departments,

* human rights bodies,

* and “affirmation-only” advocates to argue:

“The science is moving again — the pause should end.”

That argument will be wrong — but politically powerful unless challenged early.

6/ The Biggest Red Flag: Ignoring the Existing Evidence

One of the most important points — stressed repeatedly by Transgender Trend and raised by Joyce and Forstater — is this:

A massive experiment already happened. 🤯

Around 9,000 children passed through the UK’s Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.

About 2,000 were given puberty blockers. Those children are now adults.

Yet:

* their long-term outcomes have never been properly tracked,

* fertility, mental health, regret, and sexual function data remain unknown,

* records were fragmented when NHS numbers were changed,

* adult gender clinics refused to cooperate with follow-up.

The Cass Review explicitly recommended a data-linkage study to analyse this cohort before exposing more children to medical risk. ‼️

That study has not been completed.

Instead, the system has chosen to:

* put new children on blockers rather than examine what happened to the last generation.

From an ethical standpoint, that is indefensible.

7/ Ideology Is Built Into the Trial

Another issue that directly affects countries like ours — where mandatory affirmation is still enforced in many settings — is that the trial embeds ideological assumptions:

- Parents are framed as either “affirmative” or “not supportive”. (in questionnaires used)

- Disagreement with social transition is implicitly treated as harmful.

- The institutional setting (including King’s College London) mandates “affirmation” frameworks.

- The real purpose of blockers — facilitating later medical transition — is not openly examined.

In other words:

The trial assumes the conclusion it is supposed to test.

This mirrors exactly what many parents and clinicians in NZ and Australia already experience:

* dissent is pathologised,

* caution is framed as cruelty,

* and ideology replaces clinical neutrality.

8/ The Consent Problem — And Why Parents Are Being Set Up to Fail

Clinicians speaking out about this trial have been blunt:

* Children as young as 10 cannot understand lifelong consequences.

* Parents under emotional pressure are far more likely to say yes than no.

* Detransitioners consistently say:

“I don’t blame my parents. I wish the clinicians had stopped me.”

As long as puberty blockers remain “on the table”, parents are placed in an impossible position — one that shields institutions while leaving families to carry the moral burden.

9/ Why This Is a Movement Issue, Not Just a UK Issue

This trial is not just about medicine.

It is about:

* whether precaution still matters,

* whether children are allowed time to mature without medicalisation,

* whether evidence comes before ideology,

* whether governments learn from past failures — or repeat them.

🥝 For New Zealanders:

* the pause on new prescriptions is fragile.

* flawed overseas evidence will be used to pressure regulators.

For Australians:

* states are watching the UK closely.

* a poor-quality trial risks reopening doors that were closed for good reason.

10/ What People Can Do Now - PLEASE ACT NOW

* Do not accept claims that this trial “answers the evidence gap.”

* Insist that long-term follow-up of past patients comes first.

* Challenge the idea that affirmation-only care is neutral or benign.

* Talk to MPs, clinicians, and regulators before the narrative hardens.

* Once a trial is labelled “ethical” and “authoritative”, it becomes much harder to unwind — even if it was flawed from the start.

Use this resource: https://tinyurl.com/NZTalkingPts4Drs

FINAL THOUGHT

What we are seeing is not careful science.

It is a system trying to move forward without looking back, because looking back would force accountability.

Australians and New Zealanders should care — not because this trial will bring clarity, but because it risks entrenching uncertainty while exposing another generation of children to harm.

Very useful primers:
https://transgendertrend.com/pathways-puberty-blocker-trial-cass-review/

https://transgendertrend.com/data-linkage-study/

https://transgendertrend.com/opinion-poll-stop-nhs-puberty-blocker-trial/