Trans youth will no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at NHS England gender identity clinics in a new “blow” to gender-affirming healthcare.

Puberty blockers are a type of medicine that prevent puberty from starting by blocking the hormones – like testosterone and oestrogen – that lead to puberty-related changes in the body. In the case of trans youth, this can delay unwanted physical changes like menstruation, breast growth, voice changes or facial hair growth.

On Tuesday (12 March), NHS England confirmed the medicine, which has been described as “life-saving” medical care for trans youth, will only be available to young people as part of clinical research trials.

The government described the move as a “landmark decision”, Sky News reported. It believed such a move is in the “best interests of the child”.

  • maniclucky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    One case in the 60s/70s? That’s bad evidence. I assume you are clarifying and not supporting the person above.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why don’t you calm down and not be hostile.

      You asked for a case. I gave you as well known case.

      If you had read the case, it was common practice and that is the study that ended it.

      • maniclucky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Disinformation merits hostility. I’ll yield when I’m wrong.

        Because this case ended it, it is no longer true that doctors force transitioning, thus proving my assertion that the person above is full of shit. Show me a relevant case and I’ll be happy to change my mind. Some case in which a doctor forced transitioning and was not prosecuted or sued over it within the last decade. I’m flexible on the date.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          If you had read the case, which you haven’t. You would have learned this was a common practice.

          You keep moving the goalpost. I was just responding to your inaccurate statement.

          • maniclucky@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 months ago

            Was. It was common practice. It is not relevant because the person above asserted that it is currently common practice. My goalposts are stationary and your evidence only provides historical context.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              I never saw him say current. If missed where he said current, my apologizes. When I look at his statement, I still don’t see it.

              • maniclucky@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                Context clues and elementary understanding of language. They stated, prior to mod removal, that they had seen doctors force transitioning. Present tense. This would imply that the person was alive in the 60s/70s (reasonable, though Lemmy’s demographics make that unusual). The more likely, and unprovable on the internet, truth is that the person is regurgitating misinformation.

                A quote from someone that quoted the person (incompletely it seems): “seen doctors force sex change to children that lead to the child killing themselves in adulthood”.

                This also does not address the inherent misleading portion of it, which is the thing that merits the outrage: cases from half a century ago are not a basis on which to inform people of wrongdoing in modern healthcare. Granted, I didn’t explicitly state that as a goal from the outset, but we’re cuddling up next to bad faith to assert that as unreasonable.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  It’s possible they did based on age.

                  If they are talking about currently, I would call BS just like you.

                  • maniclucky@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    That if smells of capitulation without agreement, but thank you in any case. I hope you have a nice day.