Commentary by ‘Ala Pomelile
Across the Western world, governments are starting to face an uncomfortable reality: the medicalisation of childhood gender distress has advanced much faster than the evidence supporting it. While New Zealand remains cautious (or passive), other countries are now taking clear, decisive action to safeguard children from medical treatments with uncertain long-term risks.
In the UK, the controversial Pathways clinical trial — assessing the effect of puberty blockers on young people with gender incongruence has been halted. The UK medicines watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), raised concerns about participant wellbeing and warned of “unquantified risk” of potential long-term biological harms, noting that biological safety has not been definitively demonstrated in younger children.
In a statement, an MHRA spokesperson said: “With all clinical trials, the MHRA’s top priority is the safety and well-being of the trial participants. As part of that commitment, complex clinical trials are kept continuously under review and the MHRA maintains an active scientific dialogue with trial sponsors.”
The regulator also advised raising the minimum age for participants to 14, recommending a stepwise approach that begins with older adolescents. It was additionally announced that Professor Jacob George has been recused from further involvement in the trial following the identification of social media posts made prior to his appointment. King’s College London, which is running the study, confirmed recruitment will not begin until the issues are resolved.
Across the Atlantic, on February 23, the Chloe Cole Act was reintroduced in U.S. Congress, with Missouri Congressman Bob Onder sponsoring it in the House. The Department of Justice transmitted the legislation, which was authorized under President Trump’s Executive Order 14187, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”
The bill would:
- Protect minors from medical transgender interventions — including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgical procedures — by placing full liability on hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies.
- Establish a private right of action, allowing affected individuals and their families to pursue civil damages, including costs of detransition, medical expenses, and damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering.
- Provide a lengthy statute of limitations to ensure individuals have sufficient time to seek legal recourse.
The bill was first introduced last September under the title “Victims of Chemical or Surgical Mutilation” by Congressman Onder and Senator Marsha Blackburn, but did not go beyond committee. Chloe Cole, a detransitioner and activist against transgenderism who also spoke at Forum on the Family 2024, explained the urgency in a press release:
“While we’ve made significant strides in raising awareness and enacting protections in recent years, the fight is far from over. Too many children remain at risk of irreversible harm from puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical procedures pushed on them before they can fully understand the consequences. Reintroducing this bill is a vital step in our mission to ensure that no minor in America ever endures the kind of lasting, irreparable damage I experienced.”
New Zealand, meanwhile, finds itself almost in an uneasy limbo.
Our government suspended new prescriptions of puberty blockers for gender dysphoric youth last December, due to uncertain evidence regarding their risks and benefits. However, this cautious move faces opposition. PATHA, the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa, has filed a lawsuit against the ban, arguing that the decision was motivated by political reasons rather than solid medical proof.
That claim does not hold up to scrutiny. The UK’s landmark Cass Review (2024) concluded that existing research on puberty blockers is weak and limited, advising restrictions on medical use outside clinical trials. In 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) found that evidence for puberty blockers offers very limited benefits and involves significant risks, including irreversible harms like infertility. Similarly, New Zealand’s Ministry of Health conducted thorough evidence briefing, which also identified significant gaps in the data regarding both benefits and long-term risks around puberty blockers.
Across every major independent review there is a recurrent theme – the evidence supporting the use of puberty blockers in gender-related care for children is limited, of low quality, and inadequate to establish firm conclusions about long-term benefits or risks. In other words, the evidence is insufficient to justify their routine use. Despite this, influential medical bodies and advocates (including politicians) continue to ignore the evidence and push for their use — placing ideology above the safety of New Zealand’s children.
Although advocates of gender-affirming care claim that banning it is discriminatory and driven by ideology, it is hard to see how anyone can ignore the uncertainties and risks involved. The evidence clearly indicates that caution is essential when it comes to chemical and surgical interventions for children, presented under the guise of gender-affirming care.
The countries acting to protect children, be it through legislation, medical practice, or policy change, are not doing so from ignorance. They are doing so because the evidence demands it. They are responding to their regulatory responsibilities and the duty of care they owe to the growing number of young people who have been failed by a system and medical practitioners more committed to ideology than to care. It is time for New Zealand to act with the same resolve — before more children are harmed.
