@cdo...49283 A real ban would be amazing news. It's not a ban at all. It just a requirement that children be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive the interventions, and of course Cass recommended to make that trial available to all children in the expanded new clinic system. It's not a ban , it's just a sign off that limits legal liability of the perpetrators. And that's paired with false reassurances to calm a public justifiably outraged about child sterilization.

They were originally meant for girls who had very early (like pre-school age early) puberty, and for treatment of some types of cancer, and to castrate se* offenders in prison. In all cases the side effects have been terrible.

@Vibez@Vibez-o5k No , not actually a win. It's not a ban at all. It just a requirement that children be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive the interventions, and of course Cass recommended to make that trial available to all children in the expanded new clinic system. It's not a ban , it's just a sign off that limits legal liability of the perpetrators. And that's paired with false reassurances to calm a public justifiably outraged about child sterilization.

@colleenlloyd9842 if this was actually a real ban on blockers I'd agree. It's actually not a ban at all - it's a requirement for children being subjected to these interventions to be signed up to a clinical trial ( and Cass has already directed the new expanded clinics towards a mass default trial ). This is effectively a liability limitation paired with clever propaganda to reassure the public while not actually protecting children . And re Australia, a couple of our pro-child-transition " health " propagandists have openly stated how they think the UK is actually moving more towards the Australian systems ( which I agree with you are horrific ) . They aren't completely wrong about what the new clinic system and the. Cass review really do. It's a masterwork of propaganda and false reassurances , while actually radically expanding the system which abuses children (via developmental disruption), and very cynically reframing the liability limitation "trial " requirement as a " ban ".

Gosh you guys are creepy. Worrying about other people's children's private parts. Clearly you don't think children should have rights to medical privacy because of bigoted views. Clearly most light switches are configured normally... But some aren't.

@sarahainscough6264 a real ban would be great news - but sadly that's not what this is ! It's not a ban at all. It just a requirement that children be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive the interventions, and of course Cass recommended to make that trial available to all children in the expanded new clinic system. It's not a ban , it's just a sign off that limits legal liability of the perpetrators. And that's paired with false reassurances to calm a public justifiably outraged about child sterilization.

@lamington8195 it's also just as important to know that this isn't a real ban on puberty blockers. It just makes enrolment in a trial a tick box pre-requisite . And of course the Cass report recommend enrolment in a trial as a default for all children in the new expanded system that replaces GIDS.

@Gwion-x8w better to put energy into exposing this fake " ban ' , and achieving a real ban on puberty blockers. This supposed ban is actually just a requirement that all children receiving these dubious interventions be enrolled in a " clinical trial". Pair that with an understanding that Cass recommended enrolment in a trial as a default option for all children in the new system, and you might need to save the celebrations for later. In fact of you are interested in legal ramifications, you might consider how this so called ban ( a requirement to sign a clinical trial enrolment , not a real ban ) might be understood more cynically as a plan for liability limitation, limiting future court cases by requiring children to be signed up for a trial. Have a really good think about the ramifications of that.

I do. It's a hurtful ideology. It hits vulnable people the most. Luckly they still had safeguards when I was younger.

A real ban of puberty blockers would be great news- but It's not a ban at all. It just a requirement that children be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive the interventions, and of course Cass recommended to make that trial available to all children in the expanded new clinic system. It's not a ban , it's just a sign off that limits legal liability of the perpetrators. And that's paired with false reassurances to calm a public justifiably outraged about child sterilization. This theatre is an outrageous con, designed to continue experimentation on children while limiting liability , and neutering dissent . Listen carefully, read the review , and fight against the sterilization of children.