On December 11, Wes Streeting, the UK Health Secretary, announced an indefinite ban on the use of puberty blockers for under 18s questioning their gender identity. This decision followed expert consultations, advice from the Commission on Human Medicines, and the findings of Dr. Hilary Cass, Chair of the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People. The Cass Review highlighted substantial risks and minimal benefits associated with puberty blockers, recommending their use only within clinical trials under strict oversight.
The ban replaces a temporary restriction introduced by the previous Conservative government. This earlier measure faced legal challenges but was upheld by the High Court, which acknowledged the “powerful scientific evidence” underpinning the Cass Review’s conclusions. The court emphasised the potential harm of these treatments and the need for greater clinical rigour.
The Green Party’s response—or lack thereof
The Green Party has yet to release an official response to the ban, likely because it does not have a specific policy on puberty blockers for gender-questioning children. Despite this, two newly elected Green MPs, Sian Berry and Carla Denyer, spoke out strongly against the ban during the parliamentary debate. Their statements have raised concerns about their alignment with the Green Party’s scientific and evidence-based principles.
Disregarding science in the name of advocacy?
Sian Berry, MP for Brighton Pavilion, framed the decision as discriminatory, asking the Health Secretary, “Does he understand that this is, at heart, discriminatory?” In response, the Health Secretary dismissed her claim, stating, “The hon. Member’s intervention is why we should listen to clinicians, not politicians.”
Carla Denyer, MP for Bristol Central, argued the ban was a breach of human rights and questioned the ethics of clinical trials for puberty blockers. However, the Health Secretary countered that all National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) studies undergo rigorous scientific and ethical review, and the final design of the proposed trial would be subject to the same standards.
Both MPs appeared to dismiss the substantial evidence informing the government’s decision. The Cass Review identified significant risks to children and insufficient evidence of benefits from puberty blockers for those questioning their gender identity. Furthermore, Berry’s framing of the issue as discrimination revealed a misunderstanding of the medical basis for the ban. The restriction targets the treatment’s risks, not the identities of those who might seek it. Children with other medical conditions, such as precocious puberty, remain eligible for puberty blockers under appropriate clinical conditions even if they may also be questioning their gender identity.
Berry’s background raises questions
Berry’s dismissal of the medical basis for the ban may come as a surprise to those familiar with her background. An Oxford graduate with a degree in material science, she previously worked as a copywriter in the pharmaceutical industry. Reflecting on that period of her career, she stated, “After a few years I developed a conscience,” going on to say “It was a really, really interesting job, but in the end I was working for a big pharmaceutical company.
“Some of the work I was doing was trying to market drugs for things that shouldn’t necessarily be medicalised.”
This acknowledgment of the dangers of over-medicalisation contrasts sharply with her current stance, which seemingly disregards the Cass Review’s evidence and warnings about the risks of puberty blockers.
The reputational risk to the Green Party
While MPs Berry and Denyer are entitled to their opinions, their public statements have broader implications. As prominent Green representatives, their conduct reflects on the party’s values and credibility. Historically, the Green Party has prided itself on a commitment to scientific evidence as the foundation of its policies, particularly in its environmental advocacy. By dismissing well-documented scientific evidence in the debate over puberty blockers, these MPs risk undermining the party’s reputation as a champion of evidence-based policymaking.
In a time when environmental issues and climate change demand public trust in science, the Green Party cannot afford to erode its credibility. Advocacy that disregards medical evidence not only weakens the party’s broader message but also risks alienating supporters who value its commitment to rational, science-driven solutions.
Internal pressures and political manoeuvering
Complicating matters is the party’s internal dynamics. Reports suggest that LGBTIQA+ Greens pressured leadership to withdraw a previous statement on the Cass Review, threatening to withhold support. While the Green Party officially opposes whipping, such actions raise questions about whether internal factions exert undue influence that resemble a whip system. Berry and Denyer’s outspoken opposition to the ban may be seen as a bid to curry favour with trans activist groups within the party, rather than a genuine concern for the well-being of vulnerable children.
A call for reflection
Green MPs must recognise the risks of their positions. Advocating for treatments that harm children and dismissing robust medical evidence conflicts with the party’s foundational principles. In doing so, they jeopardise the Green Party’s hard-earned reputation as a rational, scientifically grounded voice in public discourse.
To maintain its integrity and public trust, the Green Party must prioritise evidence over ideology—especially in areas that involve the health and safety of young people. Failing to do so risks not only the party’s credibility but also its ability to lead in the critical fight for environmental and social justice.