UK Bans Puberty Blockers for Children as U.S. Supreme Court Weighs Tennessee’s Ban

The U.K. has made the ban on puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria indefinite, while the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for a case that may set a precedent for a similar ban in the U.S. The UK Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) determined that GnRH agonists, commonly referred to as puberty blockers, pose an “unacceptable safety risk for children and young people under 18 years without significant additional safeguards.”

In April, The HighWire reported about the release of the Cass report, a new study regarding gender dysphoria, and the temporary ban on puberty blocker prescriptions for children in the U.K.  Hilary Cass concluded that there isn’t any reliable long-term data to support the safety of these medications for children.

A study published in April found that the highest rate of gender “non-contentedness” is highest at the age of 11 before puberty typically takes place. While 21-22% of children experience gender-related distress, only 2% continue to experience that distress into adulthood.

The CHM notes that children who have been taking puberty blockers in the six months preceding June 3, 2024 can still obtain prescriptions but will not be able to get these medications from their primary care doctor or general practitioner. The CHM also states that additional mental health and psychological services may be necessary for children who have begun treatment, but will not be able to access puberty blockers under the new order.

The United States Supreme Court also heard arguments this month challenging a gender affirming care ban for minors in Tennessee. The Biden administration, along with a Memphis physician and three families with transgender teens, claims that Tennessee’s ban violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The justices were asked to examine whether the law is being applied equally regardless of sex.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor argued that a female child who appears gender-neutral and seeks medication to prevent breasts from growing would be prescribed the medication while a male child in the same circumstance would be denied. Tennessee’s Solicitor General Matthew Rice said the law hinges entirely upon medical purpose and thus doesn’t discriminate based upon sex. If the medical purpose is precocious puberty, then the medication will be made available, while the medical purpose of gender dysphoria would prevent the child from obtaining puberty blockers.

The justices raised concerns about the court’s decision to make medical decisions rather than allowing the public to vote. Chase Strangio, a transgender male attorney arguing against Tennessee, echoed Sotomayor’s statement that the ban discriminates against girls with gender dysphoria. In contrast, males with precocious puberty are allowed access to the same medication.

Justice Alito had an exchange with Strangio asking about the immutability of gender identity. Strangio said, “I think that the record shows that the discordance between a person’s birth sex, and gender identity has a strong biological basis and would satisfy an immutability test.”

Alito asked, “Does transgender status apply to individuals who are gender fluid?” He followed that up by asking if there were transgender individuals who, at one point, identified as their birth sex. Strangio agreed that there are people like that. Alito responded, “So, it’s not an immutable characteristic, is it?” The decision for the supreme court case is expected to come in the summer of 2025.

In October, Jeffrey Jaxen reported on Dr. Johanna Olson’s refusal to publish the results of a 9-year study of almost 100 children who received puberty blockers. Dr. Olson said the drugs did not improve mental health in children and believes the results would be weaponized.

The study reportedly cost $9.7 million and was funded by U.S. taxpayers through the NIH. House Representative and Chair of the  Committee on Oversight and Accountability Lisa McClain wrote a letter to Director Monica Bertagnolli demanding accountability and transparency from the NIH following Olson’s refusal to release the results from the study.

Rep McClain claimed that Dr. Olson misinterpreted data from a Trans Youth Care study, which followed 95 children who were given puberty blockers and followed their mental health outcomes over two years. According to McClain, Dr. Olson concluded that the study showed no mental health change over the two years and that puberty blockers have no adverse impact on mental health. The study, however, found two-thirds of the participants reported suicidal ideation, and of those, 25% attempted suicide at least once.

Rep McClain wrote, “Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s apparent mischaracterization of the TYC study’s results and refusal to publish taxpayer-funded research because they contradict her pre-existing biases and could be cited by critics of ‘gender-affirming’ medical interventions is an irrefutable example of politicization of scientific research to further an ideological agenda.  Deliberately mischaracterizing and withholding the results of the TYC study has serious implications for the health and safety of children who are subjected to “gender-affirming” medical procedures, many of which are irreversible and hold lifelong implications despite lacking adequate scientific support for their efficacy or safety.”

Rep McClain added, “NIH has a duty to conduct oversight of its extramural research grants and ensure that its funded research exemplifies its purported principles of scientific integrity.” On behalf of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, McClain requested unpublished research, data, and progress reports related to the study in question. McClain requested that the NIH comply with these document requests by November 18, but no further update has been provided on the request.

President-elect Donald Trump stated that he will encourage Congress to “pass a law prohibiting child sexual mutilation in all 50 states.” Trump said, “It will go very quickly. I will declare that any hospital or health care provider that participates in the chemical or physical mutilation of minor youth will no longer meet federal health and safety standards for Medicaid and Medicare and will be terminated from the program immediately.”

The HighWire reported about a lawsuit in January in which Fenway Community Health declared immunity from lawsuits for misdiagnosing and causing injury to a detransitioner. Fenway claims it has immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is something that protects many gender clinics from liability when harm is caused to patients.