Genevieve Gluck
When the same drugs that are called "puberty blockers" are given to sex offenders, it's called chemical castration - because that's what it is. Typically this is reserved for the most recidivist pedophiles and sexual criminals. Scientific literature acknowledges that long-term usage isn't recommended for health reasons, which includes early osteoporosis, or bone deterioration. But when the same drugs, GnRH agonists, that are given to castrate pedophiles are given to children, suddenly, they're touted as perfectly safe and even life-saving. It's an obvious hypocrisy. It's blatant, and it's horrifying.
James Esses
🚨Breaking🚨 Last night, in what is significant overreach for a backbench Peer, Hilary Cass sent a document to every single MP and Peer, justifying and defending the puberty blockers trial. I have posted below the full document for people to read. Here is my initial response: She comes across as completely biased and her reasoning is flawed. She states that there is no evidence base to determine safety of puberty blockers but concludes with the categorical statement: “I am not worried about the safety of the children and young people in the trial”. She explains away risks to infertility and sexual functioning. She uses warped logic around impact to bone density (claiming that children without puberty blockers will be less socially active and this may cause bone issues regardless). She downplays the utility of the linkage study. She speaks glowingly about the “benefit of stopping unwanted puberty”. She believes the State should give children puberty blockers, otherwise they will get them through the black market. She is an ideologue masquerading as an independent clinician.
