Blocking puberty blockers in the U.K.

The U.K. government recently announced an indefinite ban on puberty blockers for all new patients under the age of 18. This decision extends the temporary ban announced in May, which followed the recommendations of the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services chaired by Hilary Cass. The Cass Review, as it has come to be known, raised concerns that there is insufficient scientific evidence that puberty blockers are a safe way to treat gender dysphoria in children. Among other findings, the Cass Review noted the poor quality of published studies of puberty blockers, acknowledged the need to address mental health issues, and called for a provision for those who wish to detransition.

According to a press release from the Department of Health and Social Care, an independent review by the Commission on Human Medicines echoes the findings of the Cass Review. According to the CHM, there is an “unacceptable safety risk in the continued prescription of puberty blockers to children.” Current patients under age 18 who are taking puberty blockers may continue to do so. However, the drugs cannot be prescribed to any new minor patients who reside in England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.

But note carefully that with this decision, the U.K. has not rejected transgenderism in principle, even among children. Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting announced the indefinite ban will be reviewed again in 2027, following a clinical trial. The National Health Service remains committed to supporting the health of young people experiencing gender dysphoria. Streeting, Cass, and other medical experts are clear the ban is about establishing the safety of puberty blockers, not rejecting transgenderism. It is unclear at present whether transgender activists will challenge this decision legally. As WORLD reported, the U.K. High Court rejected an earlier challenge to the temporary ban in July.

It is noteworthy that the U.K. government is raising concerns about the safety of puberty blockers at the same time this issue is provoking controversy in the United States. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments related to a 2023 Tennessee law that bans puberty blockers and hormone therapy for teenagers for reasons similar to the U.K. ban. The decision in United States v. Skrmetti, expected in June, will affect at least 24 states that currently place some sort of restriction on the access minors have to transgender procedures.

Conservative Christians should be encouraged by the growing interest in banning transgender procedures for children. Parents, politicians, and medical experts are raising a raft of interrelated concerns about the effect of transgender treatments on young people. State and federal governments are responding appropriately. Even many progressives who are favorable to transgenderism are unwilling to endorse blanket access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors. Common sense is winning, at least on this front.

And yet, we must also remain clear-eyed about where things currently stand. The growing consensus against transgenderism is mostly limited to children and teenagers, though there are also mounting concerns about biological men identifying as women so that they can compete in women’s athletics. However, these understandable apprehensions are articulated in the context of widespread acceptance of transgenderism in the United States, the U.K., and other secularized Western nations.

Progressive politicians and woke corporations still advocate for hate-speech laws and sexual orientation and gender identity legislation that would hinder the freedom of social conservatives to object to transgenderism in principle. Mainstream films, television, and the performing arts continue their decades-long effort to normalize deviant notions of gender and sexuality, including transgenderism. Many medical professionals who are rightly concerned about the dangers of puberty blockers and hormone therapy are also committed to finding what they believe to be safer alternatives to support young people who desire to transition to a different gender. The debate is far from over.

At present, the transgender mind virus remains too prevalent in our body politic to allow for a return to traditional notions of human sexuality. However, politics is about the art of the possible. Right now, it seems possible that a critical mass of people, including medical experts and judges, can reach a consensus that young people under 18 should not have access to puberty blockers and hormone treatments in response to gender dysphoria. Let’s pray that God would grant wisdom to researchers at the U.K. National Health Service and the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Let’s rejoice in whatever victories we can win in the war for our culture. And let’s continue to advocate for a sexual ethic that is consistent with holy Scripture, natural law, and science rightly ordered.