Yvonne van Dongen
Veteran NZ journo incredulous gender ideology escaped the lab. Won’t rest until reality makes a comeback.
The government announcement that new prescriptions of puberty blockers would cease next month resulted in an immediate flurry of aggrieved articles in mainstream media (MSM).
Medical professionals were quick to weigh in, all singing from the same song sheet. Trans children will be harmed, puberty blockers are safe and reversible, the ban will lead to greater conflict, self loathing and mental health issues, including anxiety and depression, are just some of the doomy claims chimed in by these experts. The spectre of increased bullying, self-harming, and even suicidal ideation was also raised even though research does not support this.
But can the blame for this uniform response be laid completely at the door of MSM? Not entirely.
Most journalists do not have a science background and, under pressure from deadlines, require the assistance of those who do. The Science Media Centre (SMC) was set up in 2008 for this very purpose.
The SMC aims to be the go-to place for the nation’s journalists. Its stated aims are to “promote accurate, evidence-based reporting on research, science, and innovation by helping the media work more closely with the research community”. They regularly put out press releases on current issues, that include ready-to-publish responses from various experts.
The release on the puberty blocker announcement featured the reactions of six such experts. Here is a link to the release. Each one of the people below condemned the move.
- Dr Ben Albert, paediatric endocrinologist, Starship Children’s Health, Te Whatu Ora, and senior research fellow, Liggins Institute, University of Auckland
- Dr Rona Carroll, general practitioner; and senior lecturer, University of Otago, PATHA executive committee member
- Professor Paul Hofman, paediatric endocrinologist, University of Auckland
- Dr Massimo Giola, sexual health physician
- Dr Anna Ponnampalam, reproductive biologist, University of Auckland
- Dr Sue Bagshaw, senior clinical lecturer, Christchurch School of Medicine, University of Otago
The media made full use of the last specialist, perhaps because she is the most decorated, earning herself a Dame Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2019 for her services to youth health. Bagshaw has also frequently spoken out in favour of the medical route for gender confused children. In 2024 her popularity with the media prompted Family First to release a video highlighting the most egregious examples of her advice.
The SMC press release also provided a link for previous responses on this topic. That highlighted three other releases on puberty blockers. Once again, all the specialists’ views were generally in accordance with one another. Some of the names are recurring, such as Dr Rona Carroll and Prof Paul Hofman.
As well, many professional bodies oppose the ban. They include:
- New Zealand Paediatrics Society
- New Zealand Society of Endocrinology
- New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists
- New Zealand Psychological Society
- College of Child & Youth Nurses (NZ)
- New Zealand Sexual Health Society
- Society of Youth Health Professionals
- Association of Salaried Medical Specialists
- New Zealand Association of Social Workers
- Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa
Some might say this chorus of opposition is because the government decision is wrong. The latest decision is clearly reckless and based on incorrect information. Several lamented the fact that the government had made this decision at all, saying it is a clinical decision that should be made by specialists, not politicians.
But the government is only following the lead of other governments, such as Sweden, Finland, Norway, France and the United Kingdom. In fact, in May 2024 the UK government introduced an emergency ban on prescribing puberty‑suppressing hormones to under-18s for gender dysphoria, specifically from private or non‑UK prescribers. The emergency response was made in response to the recommendations of the Cass Review looking into gender-identity services for children and young people.
The review was chaired by Dr Hilary Cass, a leading consultant paediatrician and former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
The final Cass Review (April 2024) concluded there was insufficient and/or inconsistent evidence about the longer‑term effects of puberty suppression on mental, psychosocial, cognitive, and psychosexual development. The Cass Review recommended that puberty‑suppressing hormones for under‑18s should only be prescribed within a research protoco/clinical trial, not broadly in routine care.
It’s hard to believe there is no medical professional in this country who supports the move to halt puberty blocker prescription. Nor even one professional association. Could they really all be so cowed by the compliance of their peers that none dare to raise their head above the parapet? Does every medical professional in New Zealand reject the findings of the UK’s most esteemed paediatrician?
If nothing else, the SMC could have suggested journalists speak to Dr Charlotte Paul (emeritus professor and epidemiologist) who has been very vocal in the media on this issue, raising substantial concerns.
Apart from the concerning lack of contrary views put forward by an organisation intended to promote evidence-based reporting, the unavoidable question this raises is related to the integrity of the SMC. For instance, is it promoting an ideological narrative instead of allowing for differing views?
This should concern us all for many reasons, one of them being that we pay for the SMC. The SMC receives over $1m in funds annually from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment while the Royal Society provides their administrative and operational support. The Royal Society is also largely funded by the government.
New Zealand’s SMC is one of several similar bodies in the Anglosphere. It was formed six years after the first SMC was launched in the United Kingdom in 2002. Australia and Canada also now have SMCs.
As it happens, last week the British SMC also came to the attention of the public, relating to media reporting on puberty blockers. Journalist Hannah Barnes was refused entry to a media briefing on puberty blocker clinical trials because she was deemed not to be an accredited journalist. Except that Hannah Barnes is the author of the 2023 Sunday Times bestseller Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock’s Gender Service for Children.
Explained Barnes on X – “To clarify – the decision on who could attend/not attend was made by the Science Media Centre, who hosted the event.”
Sex Matters director Helen Joyce responded immediately with “Sheer insanity, Hannah is absolutely the best informed journalist in the UK on this subject.”
A cursory look at the British SMC reveals a much more favourable reaction by quoted experts to the recommendations of the Cass Review, unlike the New Zealand response.
But given the uniformly hostile choir of local SMC’s experts chiming in on the puberty blocker ban, the decision of their British counterparts to refuse entry to Barnes sounds, at the very least, like a bum note.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.
