Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The proposed puberty blockers trial on children is not just badly designed; it is profoundly unethical. It proposes that vulnerable children who are struggling with their identity, but medically healthy, be given drugs that risk permanent damage. We know that this group of children is deeply vulnerable. They deserve proper care and treatment. The medicalising of gender identity risks underlying conditions being overlooked, meaning that children will not get the support they really need.

Children in this trial would be at what is called Tanner stage 2 of puberty. For children at Tanner stage 2 who proceed to cross-sex hormones—basically, all of them—infertility is not a risk, but an expected outcome. I repeat: once they are locked into this medicalised pathway, infertility is expected. Let us be absolutely clear that this trial would mean the British state sterilising healthy little children in plain sight—not by accident, but consciously and deliberately. How could we do that to children? It would be the most appalling state scandal imaginable. These medically healthy children need love, compassion and support. They should not be given powerful drugs to stop their body from developing as normal.

The truth is that puberty can be very distressing for any child, not least those who do not conform to aggressive gender stereotypes or who will grow up to be same-sex attracted. Puberty is a natural and essential part of becoming a fully grown human being. I say to those children: you are perfect just the way you are and you do not need to be somehow corrected with these drugs.

Children of primary school age cannot possibly give consent to these life-changing decisions. When they become adults, many of them will look back on what was done to them and ask, “How did this happen to me? How did the Government do this to me?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Over the past year, the public debate has become often heated and personal and, at times, deeply harmful. The rhetoric has consequences, and we in this House must take responsibility for the climate that we help to create.

The Cass review’s recommendations were so important, and among them was a clear call for carefully designed clinical trials to build the evidence base around puberty blockers. Those trials would allow clinicians, patients and families to make informed decisions grounded in robust data rather than speculation or ideology. Those who argued that puberty blockers should be restricted due to insufficient evidence are now opposing the very research that would provide that evidence. That does not suggest a commitment to scientific rigour; it suggests a shifting position driven by political ideology. I am not a clinician, and I do not pretend to be. On matters such as these, we must be guided by medical evidence.

[Jonathan Hinder]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachel Taylor]

For the sake of time, I will not.

The need to be guided by evidence is precisely why the current situation is so troubling. It is concerning that the MHRA initially raised no objections to the trial when it was approved but has since changed that position. As Dr Cass made clear, no new evidence has been presented to justify that shift. That raises serious questions about the basis of the decision, and whether an independent regulator has buckled to pressure from a well-funded lobbying campaign. As a consequence, vital research is now at risk, and that matters. The trials are not an optional extra; they are the mechanism through which we build the evidence base that critics say is lacking.