Summary
The UK Puberty Blocker Ban: Evidence Reveals Widespread Harm to Transgender Children, highlighting a new research paper that presents a stark analysis of severe adverse effects on trans and non-binary young people and their parents following the ban, critically questioning its rationale based on the Cass Review
The UK Puberty Blocker Ban: Evidence Reveals Widespread Harm to Transgender Children
A new research paper, “Harming children: the effects of the UK puberty blocker ban,” published in the Journal of Gender Studies, presents a stark analysis of the severe adverse effects experienced by trans and non-binary children and young people, and their parents, following a UK-wide ban on puberty blockers.
Authored by Dr. Natacha Kennedy from Goldsmiths, University of London, the paper reveals an ongoing sharp decline in mental health, increased depression, social isolation, anxiety, stress, self-harm, school avoidance, and suicide ideation among those affected.
The ban, imposed on the last day of parliament before the 2024 general election and subsequently made permanent by the incoming Labour government, has criminalised the use of puberty blockers for young trans people, making the UK an international outlier.
Countries globally, including Spain, France, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Germany, Japan, South Africa, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Mexico, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, routinely prescribe puberty blockers for young people with gender incongruence.
Puberty blockers have been used since the 1990s, are fully reversible, and provide young trans people with crucial time to make decisions about their future when they are more mature. They are also prescribed in the UK for precocious puberty and conditions like prostate cancer and endometriosis.
This research critically questions the entire rationale and ethical basis for the ban, arguing that it is both dangerous and unjustified, given the significant harm it is causing.
The ban was largely based on the Cass Review, a non-peer-reviewed report that the paper highlights has been widely criticised for not being peer-reviewed and for being used as the foundation for national policy. The Cass Review, which found no empirical evidence of harm caused by puberty blockers, was a key factor in the decision to impose the ban.
Critics, including Aaron & Konnoth (2025) and Noone et al. (2025), have raised concerns about the Cass Review’s methodology and alleged bias against transition-related healthcare.
In contrast, a comprehensive review commissioned by the Utah State Legislature (LaFleur et al., 2025) concluded that policies preventing access to gender-affirming hormone therapy for paediatric patients cannot be justified by medical science or concerns about future regret.
The Cass Review itself found no empirical evidence of harm caused by puberty blockers. Yet, this new study provides “hard evidence that it is both dangerous and unjustified” to ban them, revealing a consistently high stress level among the participants.
The study, which analysed data from ninety-seven questionnaire responses from parents and conducted interviews with seven trans and non-binary young people aged 13-17, found overwhelming levels of distress among young people affected by the ban.
Parents reported their children becoming “depressed, distressed, fearful, suicidal, despairing, traumatised, anxious and stressed,” with a “sharp decline in mental health”. Many parents described their children as “suicidal or self-harming,” feeling “life wasn’t worth living because she couldn’t begin her medical transition as planned”.
The ban compounded feelings of injustice and betrayal for those who had been promised puberty blockers. Children experienced ‘constant worry’ about body changes, withdrawal from friends, and persistent anxiety. This sense of injustice is palpable and deeply affects the mental well-being of these children.
This contrasts sharply with the experiences of young people who were fortunate enough to access blockers before the ban. These children were described as happy, well-adjusted, and experienced “a huge sense of relief and liberation” Parents noted that suicidal ideation disappeared, school attendance improved, and anxiety lessened once treatment began. As one parent stated, “Once on blockers, within a matter of weeks, she was a different child”.
The ban has also caused significant anxiety and stress for parents, who reported being “terrified of what puberty is going to do for my child’s mental health” and feeling “helpless”. Some parents of younger children, who had not yet informed them about the ban, expressed heartbreaking levels of stress and fear for their children’s future.
Beyond individual distress, the research highlights an increased level of ambient transphobia since the ban’s introduction. The ban has been perceived as legitimising transphobic views, with mainstream media and politicians reportedly undermining trans children’s identities and using delegitimising language like “gender questioning” instead of “trans and non-binary”. This constant “bombardment of transphobic media propaganda” contributes to young trans people living in fear of violence and bullying.
Concerns also extend to the new NHS gender identity services for children and young people. These services are reportedly viewed with apprehension, suspected of being staffed by transphobes, and potentially offering conversion practices. Parents reported that the new services might act as a “policing function,” threatening families with social services if they legally obtain puberty blockers abroad.
This creates a system of “multilayered gatekeeping” designed to delay or deny treatment, which is far from the “holistic” approach it claims to be.
The paper concludes that the “absolute certainty of severe psychological, physical and social harm” caused by the puberty blocker ban outweighs any unquantified risks of the medication itself.
The evidence presented demonstrates that the ban is causing “very significant harm to trans children and young people,” disproving the claim that it is “protecting children.”
The author asserts that there is no justification for the ban to continue, for the proposed ‘trial’ of puberty blockers to proceed in its current form, or for the new gender identity service to operate without significant oversight from professionals with lived experience as trans people and expertise in this area.
The need for this oversight is crucial to ensure the well-being of trans children and young people.
The overwhelming weight of evidence from other sources, which supports the safety and benefits of gender-affirming healthcare, outranks the problematic Cass Review, meaning the UK government’s ban cannot legitimately claim to be “acting on the science.”
