Equipoise, Uncertainty, the Gender Medicine Dilemma and misinformation by the two old geezers- Part 5a

Time for an apology

In Part 5 of the series we wrote

Equipoise, Uncertainty and the Gender Medicine Dilemma - Part 5

‘The Bayswater Support Group argues that puberty blockers should not be subject to randomised delay or restriction within a research framework because, in their view, they are already established clinical care. Representing parents of transgender-identifying children, the group contends that withholding or delaying blockers through trial randomisation may worsen dysphoria, increase distress and potentially elevate mental health risks. They also raise concerns about safeguarding, consent capacity in younger adolescents, and whether participants are being exposed to unacceptable uncertainty in a vulnerable developmental window. From their perspective, genuine clinical equipoise does not exist: the balance of benefits and harms is deemed sufficiently clear to justify access outside a trial.’

This statement is the specular opposite of what the Bayswater Team stands for.

For example, commenting on the Cass Report, the Group posted

“The report lays bare the “departure from normal clinical practice” at GIDs with the “adoption of a medical treatment with uncertain risks, based on an unpublished trial that did not demonstrate clear benefit”. The problems exposed go beyond the GIDS clinic itself and include a failure of clinical governance within the NHS. Cass notes that “whilst care cannot improve without innovation, good clinical governance should require collection of data and evidence with appropriate scrutiny to prevent the incremental creep of new practices without adequate oversight.” In contrast to the usual caution exhibited when rolling out innovative clinical interventions, “quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children.” There are important lessons to be learned here.

The field of gender medicine is characterised by “remarkably weak evidence”, yet a climate of fear has developed, and crucial debate and scrutiny has been stifled. Cass states that “there are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media, and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour. This must stop.” We agree.”

The team also made it quite clear to us what they stand for:

“Since we founded in 2019 to challenge the lack of evidence in this area we have been involved in:

Direct support for the original Bell vs Tavistock trial which involved Mrs A, a parent alongside Kiera Bell

Exposing of the original failure of the REC who allowed the first study at GIDs and failure of the HRA to intervene when Gids moved from a research study to routine prescribing

Working alongside the DHSC to support the complete ban on routine prescribing in the private sector and the NHS

We are also engaged in legal action to stop the supply of Cross sex hormones on account of their danger and lack of evidence base there”.

The Team also thinks that too many busybodies have stuck their noses in the issue without knowing what they are on about - a fair point.

So we wish we could blame Matt Hancock for this crass misrepresentation, but we cannot.

This post was written by two contrite old dodderers who would like to apologise to the Bayswater Team and our readers.

---

The original post has been amended on the 8th March 2026 with a correction notice.