Block the Ban
The New Zealand government has announced it is banning puberty blockers for transgender youth. As a 'Middle Aged White Guy' why do I care?
I'm going to 'outsource' much of this post to those who know far more than I:
What are puberty blockers, and gender affirming care?
What are puberty blockers? What is gender affirming care?
All the information you need to fight misinformation
Emily Writes
What is the Ban?
This, quote from the PinkNews article linked below, summarises the ban:
The New Zealand government has announced it is banning puberty blockers for transgender youth as it awaits the results of a major clinical trial in the UK – which are not expected until 2031.
The announcement means that, from 19 December, any new prescriptions of hormone suppressing drugs – known as gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues – for the treatment of gender dysphoria will be halted.
However, the drugs will remain available to trans youth with existing prescriptions, and those who require them for the treatment of early-onset puberty, endometriosis and prostate cancer, or where “clinical evidence clearly demonstrates their benefit”.
New Zealand bans puberty blockers for trans youth to ‘align approach with UK’
New Zealand’s government announced it is banning puberty blockers for trans youth as it awaits the results of a major UK clinical trial.
Sophie Perry
What is the Motivation?
It's political, purely political. Rational debate does not use this language:
Puberty blocker legislation is not based on politics.
It’s based on keeping our kids safe from woke ideological ferals who think it’s ok to expose vulnerable children to unsafe and unproven chemicals.
It’s based on letting kids be kids and stopping turning our society into a plaything for extremist lefty losers.
https://www.facebook.com/winstonpeters/posts/
Why do I care?
It's in the 'Doesn't impact me directly, but I feel for those it does, and fear where it might lead' space for me. Politicians overriding health professionals is a bad thing:
Puberty blockers: why politicians overriding doctors sets a dangerous precedent
The government’s ban on puberty blockers undermines clinical expertise and targets trans youth with a policy that lacks evidence, consistency and fairness.
Jaimie Veale
What can you do?
On Sunday I joined 'Block the Ban' to march in Auckland's CBD. It was a great event. A peaceful march bookended by speeches sharing personal, professional, and organisational impacts of the ban.
Block the Ban are planning future events and have links to resources here:
Block the Ban | Instagram, Facebook | Linktree
Linktree. Make your link do more.
Contacts and information for Block The Ban
For a more general look at Trans Rights issues, consider Matt's short podcast series:
“The Middle-Aged White Guys’ Guide to Trans Rights” Podcast
A Dad’s short—but heartfelt—attempt to be an ally to the trans community, in podcast form
Robin Capper
Learn...
Postscript: But what about 'The Cass Report'?
This is often cited, even by our Health Minister to justify this act:
On Wednesday (19 November) NZ’s health minister Simeon Brown wrote in a statement shared on X.com [see screen capture below] that the government is taking “a precautionary approach” and cited the UK’s controversial Cass Review as justification for the ban.
We are basing our policy on a deeply flawed U.K. study?
Critically appraising the cass report: methodological flaws and unsupported claims.
Noone, C., Southgate, A., Ashman, A. et al. | BMC Med Res Methodol 25, 128 (2025).
Conclusions
We have demonstrated that the Cass report’s application of EBM to GAC for children and young people is deeply flawed. Our critical analysis reveals significant methodological problems in the commissioned systematic reviews and primary research that undermine the validity of the Cass report’s recommendations. During our review of the report and supplementary primary research, we found insufficient statistical rigor, unreliable datasets, claims presented without evidence, and misrepresentation of quotes from primary research participants.
These flaws highlight a potential double standard present throughout the review and its subsequent recommendations, where evidence for gender-affirming care is held to a higher standard than the evidence used to support many of the report’s recommendations. Considering this, and the Cass report’s poor understanding of transgender identities and experiences, it is vital to question the integrity and validity of the Review’s recommendations and the appropriateness of basing health policy on them.
To uphold its commitment to evidence-based medicine, future gender-affirming care research must generate robust observational data, involve transgender communities, and prioritise patient-centred outcomes, ensuring validity, generalisability, and cultural relevance.
Critically appraising the cass report: methodological flaws and unsupported claims - BMC Medical Research Methodology
Background The Cass Review aimed to provide recommendations for the delivery of services for gender diverse children and young people in England. The final product of this project, the Cass report, relied on commissioned research output, including quantitative and qualitative primary research as well as seven systematic reviews, to inform its recommendations and conclusions. Methods We critically evaluated the Cass report and the research that was commissioned to inform it. To evaluate the Risk of Bias within the seven systematic reviews commissioned by the Cass Review, we applied the ROBIS tool – a domain-based assessment of risk of bias within systematic reviews. It focuses on four domains (i) study eligibility criteria, (ii) identification and selection of studies, (iii) data collection and study appraisal, and (iv) synthesis and findings. To maintain rigour, the ROBIS tool was applied to each systematic review by two independent assessors, within Covidence, with conflicts resolved by an additional two independent assessors. We also conducted a detailed critical evaluation of the methods used in the survey of gender services for young people in Europe, the two quantitative studies of health records, and the qualitative study on the experience of gender dysphoria among young people and the claims made in the Cass report based on these studies. Results Using the ROBIS tool, we identified a high risk of bias in each of the systematic reviews driven by unexplained protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, inadequate study identification, and the failure to integrate consideration of these limitations into the conclusions derived from the evidence syntheses. We also identified methodological flaws and unsubstantiated claims in the primary research that suggest a double standard in the quality of evidence produced for the Cass report compared to quality appraisal in the systematic reviews. Conclusions We discuss these issues in relation to how evidence regarding gender affirming care is framed, the wider political context, and the future for gender affirming care. The Cass report’s recommendations, given its methodological flaws and misrepresentation of evidence, warrant critical scrutiny to ensure ethical and effective support for gender-diverse youth.
Chris Noone
