TALKING POINTS FOR DOCTORS - ZEALAND PUBERTY BLOCKER POLICY (2025)

1. NZ Has Halted Puberty Blockers for New Cases

Key Message: The Government has placed a moratorium on prescribing puberty blockers (GnRH analogues) to new patients presenting with gender dysphoria or incongruence.

Quote from Beehive:

“New patients… can no longer be prescribed gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues.”

Clinical implication: Doctors should not initiate puberty blockers for gender dysphoria outside a formal clinical trial. No such trial currently exists in NZ.

2. Government Recognises Lack of Evidence

Key Message: The decision is based on clear evidence gaps identified by the Ministry of Health and international systematic reviews.

Quote:

“There is a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating the benefits or risks of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria or incongruence.”

Clinical implication: Doctors must communicate these evidence limitations during consultations and informed consent sessions.

3. The ‘Precautionary Principle’ Now Applies

Key Message: NZ is officially adopting the same precautionary framework as the UK, Finland, Sweden, and Norway.

Quote:

“While this uncertainty persists, the Government is taking a precautionary approach.”

Clinical implication: A cautious, exploratory, and holistic approach is now expected as the clinical standard — not automatic affirmation.

4. Medical Care Must Follow Evidence-Based Standards

Key Message: The Beehive explicitly states that all youth treatments must be clinically sound and in the best interests of the child.

Quote:

“We are putting in place stronger safeguards so families can have confidence that treatment is clinically sound and in the best interests of the young person.”

Clinical implication: Doctors must revert to normal child and adolescent care standards:

• full assessment

• screening for mental health conditions

• developmental evaluation

• family context

• trauma history

• ASD/ADHD where relevant

• risk assessment

• differential diagnosis

5. Psychological and Holistic Care Should Be First-Line

Key Message: Hormonal interventions are not the frontline treatment for gender distress.

International alignment:This matches Cass Review recommendations, NICE findings, and Nordic guideline changes.

Clinical implication: Offer or refer for:

• psychological therapy

• family therapy

• broader mental-health support

• support for school challenges, bullying, or social stressors

• exploration-based care, not directive care

6. Blockers Are Only Available Within a Clinical Trial (UK Model)

Key Message: NZ is aligning with the UK, where puberty blockers are allowed only within a clinical research setting.

Quote:

“Pending completion of the United Kingdom’s clinical trial…”

Clinical implication: Doctors should inform families that:

• puberty blockers are not available as routine care

• any future use will follow formal research governance

• long-term outcomes remain unknown

7. Existing Youth May Continue Treatment — With Oversight

Key Message: Current patients will not be forced to stop, but their care must be carefully monitored.

Quote:

“The new approach will not impact patients currently receiving puberty blockers…”

Clinical implication: Doctors should:

• review ongoing treatment

• reassess risk/benefit

• ensure thorough documentation

• discuss long-term uncertainties openly

• ensure fertility and bone health monitoring is up to date

8. Suicide-Prevention Messaging Must Be Evidence-Based

Key Message: The government decision rejects activist claims such as “puberty blockers prevent suicide.”

Evidence base:No high-quality studies show blockers reduce suicide risk.The Cass and NICE reviews found no mental-health benefit.

Clinical implication: Doctors should use accurate, non-coercive language when discussing risk and ensure suicide risk is managed using established mental-health interventions.

9. International Consensus Has Shifted

Key Message: NZ is following a global movement away from the gender-affirming model for minors.

Countries taking the same approach:

• United Kingdom

• Finland

• Sweden

• Norway

• Denmark (partial)

• France (urgent caution guidance)

• Australia now reviewing (post-Cass)

Clinical implication: Doctors can confidently inform families that NZ practice now aligns with international best evidence, not activist guidance.

10. Professional Obligations: Informed Consent Must Reflect Reality

Key Message: Doctors must ensure families are given accurate, complete information.

Informed consent should now explicitly include:

• lack of long-term evidence

• potential risks to fertility

• impact on bone density

• psychosocial factors influencing gender distress

• the possibility of desistance

• increasing awareness of detransition

• alternative treatment pathways

• the fact blockers do not “buy time”

• the fact most youth on blockers progress to cross-sex hormones (96–98%)

Clinical implication: Clinicians can no longer rely on WPATH, PATHA or activist materials.Primary sources and government-approved guidelines should guide discussions. Download:

Talking points for NZ doctors on puberty blockers.pdf

Download PDF • 109KB

New Zealand: Puberty Blockers BANNED for New Cases of Gender Dysphoria

🇳🇿 The New Zealand Government has just announced a full halt on prescribing puberty blockers (GnRH analogues) to any new patients for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence.

This brings NZ into alignment with the UK, following the Cass Review.

🔒 What the Cabinet Decision Means

According to the Beehive statement:

1. New youth patients can NO LONGER be prescribed puberty blockers for gender dysphoria.

“New patients seeking treatment for gender dysphoria or incongruence can no longer be prescribed gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, pending completion of the United Kingdom’s clinical trial…”

This is a moratorium.A hard stop on new prescriptions.

This is the exact model the UK implemented after Cass:Blockers only in the context of a formal clinical trial — and NZ has no such trial running.→ Therefore: No puberty blockers for new youth.

2. Existing patients can continue — but with stricter oversight.

They will not be cut off, but treatment will be more closely monitored.

This follows the exact pattern of:

• UK

• Finland

• Sweden

• Norway

Where current users are continued on a case-by-case basis for safety, but no new youth patients start blockers.

3. Government statement acknowledges lack of evidence

This is monumental:

“The Ministry of Health’s evidence brief found that there is a lack of high-quality evidence that demonstrates the benefits or risks of puberty blockers… for gender dysphoria or incongruence.”

This directly cites weak or absent evidence, consistent with Cass, NICE, and Sweden’s systematic reviews.

4. A precautionary approach is now official NZ policy

“While this uncertainty persists, the Government is taking a precautionary approach.”

This is EXACTLY the language used in the Nordic countries.

The shift is unmistakable.

🌏 Why This Is Historic

New Zealand has been one of the most gender-affirming jurisdictions in the world for a decade.

For NZ to not only retreat, but publicly acknowledge:

• Lack of evidence

• Need for safeguards

• International alignment with UK, Finland, Sweden, Norway

…is a tectonic shift. This will have ripple effects across:

• Australia

• Canada

• The UN / WHO

• International lobby groups that have relied on NZ as a “progressive exemplar”
  

It also completely undermines InsideOUT, RainbowYouth, GMA, and the “48% suicide” narrative — because the government is explicitly acting on the evidence, not their messaging. TAKE ACTION - Send this PDF to your doctor or medical organisation in New Zealand "TALKING POINTS FOR DOCTORS — NEW ZEALAND PUBERTY BLOCKER POLICY (2025)"

Status of parliment inquiries on kids in gender clinics

Key points from Bernard Lane’s article on the status of parliament inquiry on kids in the gender clinic: https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/shine-a-light?

1. Claire Chandler, a member of Australia’s centre-right Liberal Party, has requested an independent inquiry into the medicalised gender transition for minors. The proposed inquiry would look at treatment evidence for patients diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

2. There has been a substantial increase in children accessing gender clinics in Australia, rising from fewer than 500 in 2016 to over 2,000 in 2021. The highest numbers of patients are in Victoria and Queensland.

3. Chandler highlights concerns about the lack of transparency on the nature of the treatments provided, their efficacy, and the overall clinical outcomes.

4. Chandler references the recent changes in Finland, Sweden, and England, where hormonal treatments for minors have been restricted due to weak evidence and potential risks. England's National Health Service, for example, has limited the use of puberty blockers to clinical trials.

5. Dr. Jillian Spencer, an Australian child and adolescent psychiatrist, has publicly criticised the gender-affirming treatment model, arguing that it lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate that benefits outweigh potential risks and harms.

6. Spencer is advocating for an independent inquiry to guide Australian healthcare providers on safe treatments, their appropriate timing, and conditions for children.

7. The Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA) has disaffiliated from the medical indemnity fund MDA National because the fund reduced coverage for private doctors involved in medicalised gender change for minors.

8. The National Association of Practising Psychiatrists (NAPP) in Australia supports a national inquiry into gender clinics. It stresses the need for the inquiry to be based on evidence, not opinion.

9. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists plans to publish an updated position statement on gender dysphoria later this year.

10. Litigation has started in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US, filed by individuals who regret their gender transition.

11. A motion has been proposed in the Australian Senate for a committee inquiry into youth gender medicine. Senator Chandler suggests this committee would be better than no inquiry, but she would prefer the inquiry to be separate from politics.