Children as young as 11 will be taking part in a clinical trial assessing the risks and benefits of puberty-blocking drugs, with recruitment expected to begin in August – unless ongoing legal action delays it further. The drugs temporarily halt the body’s natural hormone production, pausing the physical changes of puberty. This prevents the development of secondary sex characteristics: the menstrual cycle and breast development in girls, and facial hair, testicular growth, and voice deepening in boys. They are typically given to children questioning their gender identity who wish to transition. The drugs were banned indefinitely in 2024 by then-Health Secretary Wes Streeting, due to safety concerns and a lack of robust evidence on their long-term effects.
The trial operated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has now re-opened, with the first children expected to be recruited in August (although ongoing legal action by some clinicians and campaigners questioning the trial’s safety and ethics, may delay this). Discussions with the research team have allowed several safeguards, including participation age, to be strengthened. Thankfully no child will now be allowed to take part in the trial without parental consent, and all children will have to meet the eligibility criteria. They say the new age limits are 11 for female participants, and 12 for male participants.
This announcement comes just a week after the government confirmed a ban on social media for all under-16s from Spring 2027, covering Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, X, and YouTube. Ministers are also considering curfews on certain platforms for under-18s to curb infinite scrolling, alongside new age-verification systems. So, children will not be able to watch a YouTube video past 9pm or text their mates, but they will be allowed to take part in a drug trial to be chemically castrated. What is more harmful: a social media app, or an untested medical intervention with serious known risks?
Available evidence indicates that puberty blockers cause more harm than good. While prescribed safely for decades for precocious puberty, their use for gender dysphoria is heavily scrutinised due to the risks. They reduce bone mineral density, which is damaging to children: adolescence is a crucial time for building skeletal strength and suppressing hormones during this window can lead to weaker bones, increasing the risk of osteoporosis later in life. It also impairs future fertility. They stop the natural development of reproductive organs, and if the treatment is maintained without follow up hormone replacement, it can result in permanent sterility or lack of future sexual function. It can also cause long-term effects on cognitive and sexual development. The changes are irreversible.
Transgender activism and political sympathy have gone too far. Targeting vulnerable 11 and 12-year-olds – who are already navigating massive physical, cognitive, and emotional changes driven by brain remodelling and the onset of puberty – is egregious. Why are we chemically preventing the very process of natural adolescent development?
Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives have heavily criticised this move from the government, stating: “It is not ok to experiment on kids as young as 11 and make irreversible changes to their bodies. We must protect children from dangerous ideology. Conservatives will not just sit back and let this happen. We will not just force a vote to pause this trial, but a vote to stop it completely”.
Some doctors have questioned whether the trial is necessary at all. Campaigners are also taking legal action against the MHRA, the government and others involved in the trial. They claim it is unethical and that children cannot give fully informed consent to a treatment that might affect their future fertility.
The trial should never have been revived. Puberty blockers carry serious risks and should not be encouraged. The government has gone too far: happy to ban teenagers from social media, yet it green-lights this. Adults, should be free to make their own choices regarding their body. But children should not be exposed to serious physical interventions which put their long-term health at risk. Ministers must think again.
Jack Watson is a 17 year-old student in Year 12 at Wyke College, Hull. You can read his Substack about following Hull City FC here. Follow him on X here.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Perhaps there is a sound case for no medical interventions whatsoever for under 18s (life saving excepted) until they are old enough to make their own decisions? This though runs contrary to the Nanny State fixation that all political parties and the NHS have and the increasing demands of many for free treatments for themselves and their families.
A very good analysis by Jack Watson, who poses the following key question which nobody is answering: “Why are we chemically preventing the very process of natural adolescent development?”
So, well said.
I know it won’t mine won’t be a popular view, but I disagree with Jack that “Adults, should be free to make their own choices regarding their body.” Maybe men should be free to choose to grow a beard and maybe women should be free to grow/cut their hair, but for more serious, life-changing choices regarding their body, I’m not so sure. After all, if something is not wrong in principle – such as permanently changing our bodies in a life-changing way as a matter of preference or choice – well, where might it lead? Are we to say to children that they can’t change their biological sex right now, but hang on a few years and ask again. Either we were created male and female and that can’t change – or we evolved into one of the hundreds if if not thousands of genders now available and we can take our pick; just not until adulthood.
Anyway, overall an informative read. Thank you!