NHS Policy 2023: Puberty suppressing hormones for children and adolescents who have gender incongruence/dysphoria
They are still coming for your children, they want to transition as many vulnerable children as possible. Please help to spread awareness.
Part 1: Reviewing new NHS interim policy, engagement review, and the Equality and Health Inequalities Impact Assessment (EHIA).
[Interim policy] waybackmachine link
Having combed through several documents from this latest evil incarnate at the behest of my once beloved National Health Service from my Motherland, I feel compelled to share the most pertinent points of this agenda.
**This has to stop**
[Engagement report] waybackmachine link
*There are surgeries and hormone regimens available for consenting adults over 18 years old. Why is the NHS commissioning such in depth research and engagement into minors?
Let us review the Equality Act (2010) and the Health and Social Care Act (2012) and try to evaluate the grounds for compatibility being commensurate with a legalised framework in providing puberty suppressing hormones to children.
[Equality Act 2010] Waybackmachine link
The Equality Act of 2010 brought together various anti-discrimination laws into one single act, so any unlawful treatment (discrimination, harassment or victimisation) relating to one of the Equality Act protected characteristics, since 2010 is covered by this area of employment law.
The characteristics that are protected by the Equality Act 2010 are:
age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage or civil partnership (in employment only)
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation.
On the basis of age, gender reassignment, sex, and sexual orientation being included, the gates have been left open to allow a broad interpretation of coverage potentially extending to children. Although it appears that the act was originally intended to be focused on employment law, ergo adults gainfully employed, not children and adolescents within education.
[Health and Social Care Act 2012 UK parliament bill passage] waybackmachine link
*Reference is made explicitly to adults.
We can see from the summary that the bill claimed to serve the purpose of a board issuing guidance, with some cause for concern gleaned from the reference to “increasing GPs’ powers…on behalf of their patients” (parental consent necessity vs children being deemed to be have Gillick competence?).
We can also note the reference to economic regulation possibly eluding to certain drugs and treatments being promoted, green-lit, blocked, or withheld, over others.
The final paragraph signals a move away from decentralisation, and towards power consolidation and centralisation regarding administrative decision making authority.
Back to the NHS engagement report for puberty suppressing hormones:
Parental consent is not soley cited. The NHS response advocates for the child or young person and their family to decide about PHS treatment. This vague wording neither stipulates parental consent as a pre-requisite, nor does it suggest that a child could not make such decision themselves, alone.
Another new board has been established specifically to ‘identify’ (fabricate?) evidence gaps for children with gender dysphoria. Clinical benefits are deemed to be questionable, with the evidence of subsequent harm to be explored.
This is telling on behalf of the respondents, that the terminology itself is proving to be inherently confusing - “early on-set” and “late on-set”. Indicative of the NHS wording catering for maximum catchment across all age spectrums under 18 years old.
*Remember, these participants are not random members of the public, but referred to as “stakeholders”, suggesting they are vested in the NHS and have credentials within medical healthcare.
The responses from the stakeholders are somewhat encouraging, citing unethical concerns, damage to children, and outright experimentation.
However, the NHS responses do not seem defeatist, rather staying the course, and making minor concessions for re-wording, and making it clear that the research and the focus groups shall continue.
No definitions? In due course? How convenient.
Equality and Health Inequalities Impact Assessment EHIA waybackmachine link
Remember the names of these hormones, as we will explore this more in part 2 with the evidence review.
This is the most alarming section of the report. It highlights that autistic children are to be given additional focus with regards to gender incongruence services. This seems particularly dark, and infers that these children - amongst the most vulnerable and malleable, mentally - shall have “greater integration and support from local services”.
I know this is extremely upsetting subject matter to read about. I shall leave you with an uplifting clip of what it looks like when people in positions of power to effect change stand up and speak out for what is right, to protect children from these abhorrent predatory practices under the guise of “public health”.
SCHOOLS - This is the proper way of dealing with the activist minority taking over sexual education in schools. This mayor tells the school board to resign or be charged, for the distribution of child pornography in schools. Who is the UK government afraid of? It isn’t parents.
https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1683132101535645700
In part 2, we will explore the evidence review on gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues, along with the literature review, and other non-NHS sources highlighting the harms from such “treatment”.
Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok based dissident blogger and will always fight to protect those who cannot protect themselves. If you found this piece of value, please consider buying me a virtual coffee or making a small cryptocurrency donation.
Bitcoin address:
39CbWqWXYzqXshzNbosbtBDf1YoJfhsr45
Monero address:
86nUmkrzChrCS4v5j6g3dtWy6RZAAazfCPsC8QLt7cEndNhMpouzabBXFvhTVFH3u3UsA1yTCkDvwRyGQNnK74Q2AoJs6Pt
The battle now is clearly delineated as being a straight fight between Good and Evil. Not just right versus wrong, real vs fake, true vs false, honest vs dishonest, or beautiful vs ugly.
You don't even need to be especially religious to understand that people who will happily mutilate children purely to promote their own insane cult and thus make themselves feel temporarily better, are stone evil, and are people with whom there can be no compromise, no quarter given.
There is a pawful of young people now who identify as cats or wolves, and their identity, too, has to be "validated" by everyone they come into contact with. (See the Rye College incident - https://nypost.com/2023/06/19/student-called-despicable-by-teacher-after-questioning-peer-who-identifies-as-a-cat/ )
But I would argue that this is a less extreme form of mania than "transgenderism". If you are a boy who identifies as a male cat, at least you have a chance of running into a girl who identifies as a female cat, so you can get together and have kittens, as it were.
But the transgender types can't do that. Technically, there is no such thing as being 'transgender'. You can hack your body around as much as you like, but you don't change sex, you just lose the sex that you had and fail to achieve the sex that you want.
All you can do is turn yourself from a boy or a girl into a grotesque neuter.