Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

News Clash

New Study On Puberty Blockers And Cross-Sex Hormones Shows The OPPOSITE Of What ‘Gender-Affirming’ Activists Claim

Become a Clash Insider!

Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll keep you in the loop.

Children are being used as guinea pigs and we have no idea what the consequences of that will be.

So-called “gender-affirming care” is all the rage right now — but there isn’t much talk about what that actually means and if it is effective.

Transgender individuals have a higher rate of suicide than the general population and this is often used as emotional manipulation by activists to push for “gender-affirming care” for children.

Parents are often asked the question, “Would you rather have a dead son or a live daughter?” or vice versa.

This is a significant departure from the way that childhood gender dysphoria was handled years ago which found in repeated studies that most children — 80% to 90% — accept their biological gender after puberty.

Accepting biological sex is the real “affirmation” of gender, not using a mix of chemicals and synthetic hormones and/or surgery that rejects physical reality.

But activists gonna activist.

Amit Paley, the CEO of The Trevor Project, a non-profit focused on reducing suicide rates among LGBTQ+ youth, said, “It’s clear that gender-affirming care has the potential to reduce rates of depression and suicide attempts.”

What Paley doesn’t say is that the Trevor Project receives funding from pharmaceutical companies that make puberty blockers.

Many blue states like California are pushing to make access to pharmaceuticals to prevent or stop puberty such as Lupron which is used as a chemical castration drug for sex offenders, or cross-sex hormones to develop secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex (ie. estrogen and testosterone) without parental consent.

Gender clinics are popping up everywhere with the assurance that this type of “affirmative” care model will alleviate gender dysphoria and therefore reduce suicidal ideation in children and teens. But is it true?

A new study published by Jay Greene, Ph.D., shows that “easing access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones by minors without parental consent increases suicide rates.” (Emphasis added)

Greene states that while everyone from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) to the White House and trans activists to the Regime Media have insisted that delaying medical intervention can be dangerous, he writes that “young people may also experience significant and irreversible harms from such medical interventions.” (Emphasis added)

In the “context” section of his piece, Greene says that before 2007, puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones for adolescents was unheard of, and was extremely rare before 2010. Now, it is increasingly being used as part of the “gender-affirmative care” model and it’s being introduced to children to halt puberty.

He says that these medications remain untested but are being used on children and adolescents anyway.

The effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as a medical intervention for adolescents who identify as transgender have never been subjected to a large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT), like the kind that is typically required for approval of new medications. Puberty blockers and sex hormones had been developed originally for other purposes. Puberty blockers were originally designed to delay precocious puberty among very young children who began puberty well before their peers. Sex hormones were developed primarily to treat people who were unable to produce enough of the hormones of their biological sex. These were the uses for which these drugs were originally tested and approved. These drugs have been prescribed for young people wishing to change their secondary sex characteristics without undergoing testing and formal approval for these new uses. The lack of any experimental evidence of the effects of these medical interventions prevents the gold-standard research one would normally expect in order to isolate the causal effects of these interventions. Randomization in a randomized controlled trial isolates the exposure variable of interest and eliminates concerns of confounding in a statistical analysis.

The use of puberty blockers and sex hormones to address gender issues is also relatively recent, with widespread adoption occurring only within the past few years. The fact that randomized experiments were not required for this use of puberty blockers and sex hormones, and that this novel use of these drugs is relatively recent, means that only a handful of studies examine their effects, and all these studies use inferior correlational research designs.

These medications can have very serious consequences including affecting bone density that can lead to osteoporosis, problems with kidney and liver function, blood clots, heart disease, cancer, mental health problems, sexual dysfunction, and, of course, inferterility. And that’s just what we know about now.

Perhaps due to the significant drawbacks, it’s worth analyzing whether or not these pharmaceutical interventions actually do the thing that advocates claim that they do.

Greene goes into detail of the significant differences in the previous study models and his own and explains why his results are more reliable.

And what are his results? Well, it’s the exact opposite of what the “gender-affirming care” advocates have claimed. Greene’s study highlights suicidality in jurisdictions that provide these puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones without parental notification.

In the past several years, the suicide rate among those ages 12 to 23 has become significantly higher in states that have a provision that allows minors to receive routine health care without parental consent than in states without such a provision. Before 2010, these two groups of states did not differ in their youth suicide rates. Starting in 2010, when puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones became widely available, elevated suicide rates in states where minors can more easily access those medical interventions became observable.

Rather than being protective against suicide, this pattern indicates that easier access by minors to cross-sex medical interventions without parental consent is associated with higher risk of suicide. The Heritage model plotted the difference in a three-year rolling average of suicide rates between states with minor access provisions and states with no such provision. Chart 2 plots the trend in this difference for those ages 12 to 23 who could have been affected by the policy when cross-sex medical interventions became available. For comparison, Chart 2 also shows the trend in this difference for a group ages 28 to 39, who could not have been affected by these policies, since the people in this group would have been at least 18 when puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones became available.
Source: The Heritage Foundation (Emphasis added)

Jay Greene appeared on The Ingraham Angle on Fox News on Monday night to discuss the study. Also on the segment was Scott Newgent, who medically transitioned at the age of 42 and is now warning parents about the complications of transition and desperately urging parents to not start their kids down that path.

Newgent wrote an article about medical transition Quilette in 2020 that every parent and grandparent should read.

Forget What Gender Activists Tell You. Here’s What Medical Transition Looks Like

Newgent is an activist and started TReVoices to educate parents and push to end the medical transition of children, and appeared in Matt Walsh’s film “What Is A Woman?” that the left has raged about for the past couple of weeks.

With the significant rise in transgender identification among teens — especially teen girls who showed no sign of gender dysphoria until puberty — many places are putting the kibosh on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for children.

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) has suspended hormone treatment for anyone under age 16 after losing a court case brought by Kiera Bell, a woman who was quickly given puberty blockers at 16 and later detransitioned. Bell’s story can be read here.

Sweden has recently adopted a policy to only provide hormone therapy to those over the age of 18.

Finland severely restricted hormone therapy to minors in 2020.


The more that you “affirm” something, the more it will be cemented especially when it comes to children. How many of these kids are just confused and would “grow out of it” once their brains had a chance to develop? If the old studies are accurate, the vast majority of them.

We’re now seeing a number of children being pigeon-holed into a cross-sex gender that is not reversible.

There will probably be a whole lot of detransition stories like Keira Bell and anger about not being told what the physical cost would be like Scott Newgent.

While we on the right tend to focus on the facts and figures — let’s not forget that there are people involved here. And while the left insists that their way is “compassionate” and in the best interests of these gender-confused kids, this study shows that that is clearly not true.

K. Walker

ClashDaily's Associate Editor since August 2016. Self-described political junkie, anti-Third Wave Feminist, and a nightmare to the 'intersectional' crowd. Mrs. Walker has taken a stand against 'white privilege' education in public schools. She's also an amateur Playwright, former Drama teacher, and staunch defender of the Oxford comma. Follow her humble musings on Twitter: @TheMrsKnowItAll and on Gettr @KarenWalker

Related Articles