Juvenile “transsexuals”: Biggs


Don’t be put off by the title. This paper, by Michael Biggs, is on the “Dutch Protocol”; the name given to the pioneering use of puberty blockers, driven by clinicians who claimed to be able to identify those children destined to become “transsexuals”. The title serves as a reminder of the claims made to justify this experiment; a model which was adopted by the Tavistock, U.K. main “gender” clinic.

I will add the paper at the end. My reading is very much through the lens of a parent, with a child who believes in the idea of being “born in the wrong body”. I have researched this issue, full-time, for five years so I am pretty steeped in the ways of the “gender woo woo”. In my opinion Michael Biggs is one of the stalwart researchers in this field and he deserves global recognition. This is why I have given him his own series which you can access here. 👇

Michael Biggs

Here is the abstract for the paper I am covering in this post. As you can see this experiment is 25 years old, the evidence base is thin and some of the claims made are not only implausible, but, at this stage, it is clear, some are demonstrably false.

The paper opens with an explanation of the history of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone agonist (GnRHa) drugs to suppress puberty. It was first proposed as early as the 1990’s at the precursor to what became the World Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Biggs outlines how these drugs were proposed as a way to “resolve” a disordered “gender identity” . The drugs marketed as a “solution” for this condition do need our attention and they are not licensed for this particular condition.

It’s worth pointing out that the brand name for the puberty suppression drug used in the U.K. is triptorelin which is made by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. I covered Ferring before because they donated 1.4 million to the Liberal Democrats. You can read this post here 👇. Ferring Pharmaceuticals funded some of the research covered in this paper as will crop up later.

Liberal Democrats & Big Pharma

Biggs provides a summary of the origins of the theory of “gender identity”; the setting up of gender clinics for children and how medical intervention, initially rare, became the standard treatment at gender clinics. Some, like Harry Benjamin, were, formerly, comsidered to be operating at the reckless end of the spectrum but his use of testosterone and double mastectomies has now become the norm. There has also been a push to lower the age for these interventions. (In the U.K the youngest reported child, in receipt of puberty blocking drugs, was 10 years old.)

One of the key proponents of earlier medical intervention was Peggy Cohen-Kettenis.

This is one of her patients; a teenage lesbian who underwent testosterone, a double mastectomy, hysterectomy and the removal of her ovaries.

Some of the research, purporting to provide an evidence base for this treatment, was a follow up of 22 subjects who were treated at the Utrecht clinic. One of the problems with the, seemingly positive, results was that comparison was made to an older cohort when attitudes were less tolerant. In addition the younger group were only followed up at an age before any regret over the inability to conceive/ reproduce would, possibly, have emerged.

Another case study presented an “adolescent transsexual” who has a similar back story to Johanna. FG was also a Lesbian with a disapproving father.

FG would go on to have a similar medicalised pathway.

One would assume some advances in the kind of surgeries available to females but this is a recent photo of someone who has had surgery to create a faux-phallus. These images suggest the results leave a lot to be desired. This is a graphic image but people need to see what we are doing to these young women.

FG was considered a success story but this is what she reported when followed up in later life. Feeling of shame and inadequacyand an inability to sustain a relationship.

This is the conclusion Cohen-Kettenis drew about F.Gs experience. 👇

Below is also the story of Nancy who opted for voluntary euthanasia rather than live with how she felt about her post-operative results.

The destruction of Nancy: The girl nobody wanted.

The belief in an innate gender identity underpins the drive for these extreme interventions. Cohen-Kettenis, and other like minded people, sometimes use the analogy of a kind of “intersex of the brain” and were keen to find evidence that supported this belief. There are studies that make the claim that there is evidence of “trans” identified brains matching those of there target sex. These studies are flawed in a number of ways, They either fail to control for homosexuality, neuroplasticity / are tiny samples and one even included males on female hormones, which are known to shrink the male brain. I remain unconvinced by this “research”.

Cohen-Kettenis undertook further research in 2006 which was funded by the pharmaceutical company Ferring Pharmaceuticals who, as mentioned above, make triptolerin; the U.K. brand of the puberty suppressing drug.

Under Cohen-Kettenis, the number of children undergoing puberty suppression began to increase, markedly, but the criteria appeared strict. Formally it was required that patients must have had “gender dysphoria” since childhood; family should consent and there must be no competing mental health issues. However, this was not always adhered to; one patient was prescribed, over the objections of the parents, despite being in an institutional facility because of a physical disability. Another U.K child was prescribed, over the phone, when the U.K. clinicians refused to prescribe.

The Dutch protocol scrutinised

One of the key issues examined was the claims of “reversibility” of the puberty suppressing treatment. Suffice to say, this claim does not survive rigorous analysis, There are known impacts such as decreased bone density, documented drops in IQ and, for boys, stunted genitalia which is clearly a problem for any male who stepped off the medical pathway. The stunted genitalia was also a problem for males who want to use their penis to create a facsimile of female genitalia, as we shall see.

The second claim challenged was that this was a “pause” or a diagnostic tool to allow identity exploration. In fact 95% to 98% progress to cross sex hormones. In other words they don’t step off the medicalised pathway. This raises the concern that these children are blocked from sexual maturation and thus from a realisation they were homosexual, a common outcome for these children.

We know that proto-gay kids are vastly over-represented at gender clinics so are we denying these potential homosexuals the chance to accept and embrace their sexuality? Biggs highlights that the clinic were preoccupied by how well their subjects could “pass” as the target sex, if they had puberty suppressed. There was less emphasis on sexuality and the studies, referenced above, which emphasised homosexual outcomes, began to be downplayed in later work.

This paragraph! I have said before that more concern was expressed for sex offenders put on these drugs than for children!

In the London study we only have one girl who opted not to progress to cross sex hormones. She reported no sexual feelings in the two years post cessation.

It does not get any easier to read. The stunted genitalia creates surgical complications and resulted in the death of one boy.

Biggs covers the ex CEO of Mermaids who obtained these drugs for her son via Norman Spack, in the United States and also Jazz Jennings. Marci Bowers, Jazz’s surgeon also raised another aspect about these treatments

The paper examines the evidence for the impact on bone density, the missing homosexuals we would have expected to desist from a “trans” identity and the appearance of private provides like Helen Webberley at Gender GP. He also considers the lack of longitudinal data that follows these children into adulthood. The Tavistock Clinic claim, rather conveniently, the follow up is illegal. Here is Bernadette Wren speaking this year,

You can watch Wren’s full explanation here:

Bernadette Wren

The statement, below, by Biggs, to me, has a significant bearing on the, purported, obstacles to robust follow up and longitudinal data,

Cohen-Kettenis, herself agreed follow up needed to be at least 20 years.


Bigg’s paper offers a good account of how we got here and identifies some of the key proponents of a medicalised path for purported “juvenile transsexuals”. He challenges claims of the reversibility of puberty suppressing drugs and questions the ability of clinicians to ensure they are not sweeping up gay males and Lesbians into their patient pool.

More alarmingly he explains how the results from the Tavistock trial were only revealed after concerted pressure. Their reluctance to publish begs the question. Did they know?

Are we creating a new kind of human? Bernadette Wren 👇

He ends with a concerning story about an Austrialian girl who has refused cross sex hormones and opted to stay in a permanently pre-pubertal state.

Here is a link to the paper: I recommend reading the entire thing.

The Dutch Protocol for Juvenile Transsexuals Origins and Evidence

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. My wordpress renewal fees come in this month and I will be traveling to London for an important meeting, to be announced. Any help to cover my costs would be appreciated. Irrespective my content will remain open, I know times are tough.

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Suicide in trans youth:

Paper by Michael Biggs.

This paper was published in January 2022. Michael has done excellent work in this field and I covered his work on puberty blockers in the series on the Tavistock. Below is a paper examining claims about suicidality in trans-identified youth. This paper, by Biggs is forensic in it’s analysis and measured in the conclusions drawn.


Here is the introduction. 4 patients under the care of the U.K Gender Identity Development Service (G.I.Ds) also known simply as the Tavistock.

By now, we are all familiar with the casual deployment, as a debating tactic, of suicide in the trans-identified community. Most of the “research” used to advance this claim is suspect for a number of reasons. The main flaws are the small sample sizes and taking, self-reported, suicide attempts on trust. The latter is dangerous because the “trans” subculture fosters a victim narrative and has created a climate where activists recommend threatening suicide; especially to blackmail parents into medicalising.

However, whilst generally the suicide statistics bandied about by activists should be taken with a pinch of salt, Biggs’ work merits serious consideration. Here Michael estimates the suicide rate at GIDs to be 5.5 times higher than similar demographics but, crucially, far lower than the only other paediatric gender clinic with published data.

Biggs begins by detailing the many times the media /politicians leverage the suicide card to advance the issue of ”Transgender” rights. The more blatant would tell me to my (twitter) face that my “daughter” would kill herself if I did not affirm him as the opposite sex. Having done some investigation into the suicide statistics I had got into the habit of routinely dismissing them as transperbole, but I did become increasingly concerned about suicide rates post transition.

Biggs then takes some time looking at how these statistics gain a life of their own embedding themselves in the trans-narrative. In the UK this tended to be the figure of 48% which I covered in this 👇piece. (That study was based on 13, out of 27 trans-identified people under the age of 24). Biggs quotes a few studies using suicide statistics that look quite alarming. One of them (41%) was widely repeated and played a role in how transgender narratives were discussed and terrified family members.

Suicide in the Trans Community

The 41% figure was covered in an article.

He then references some research which suggests those self-reports were more complex in their origins. Some clarified they had only got to the ”planning” stage or were an attempt to signal they were in need of help, others were signalling their identification with the gay community.

Norman Spack who is a leading proponent of medicating ”trans-children” had this to say: ”The majority of self harmful actions that I see in my clinic are not real suicide attempts

Statistics on suicide rates after referral to gender clinics are covered by a few studies. As you can see rates are quadruple the rates for their sex. For those who have genital surgeries rates are even more significantly elevated, especially for males.

Looking at adolescent referrals the only comparative study showed 5 suicides, or 2.8% and was the highest suicide rate for the transgender population.

Legally assisted suicide.

Belgium allows legally assisted suicide and one of the people who ended her life was a trans-identified female. You can read about this case here:

Assisted suicide case

This coverage is short on detail. Nathan Verhelst had been born into a family who did not want a girl and had been rejected by her parents. The Gender Industry obliged by giving Nathan a double mastectomy and a phalloplasty. The surgeries left Nathan suicidal. She died by lethal injection at the age of 44. Supporters of voluntary euthanasia were keen to justify how diligent they were screening Nathan for assisted suicide. If only the Gender Clinic had been as diligent screening Nathan for ”transition”.

Co-morbidities in referrals to Gender Clinics

There is a pattern of self-harm and suicidal ideation in referrals to GIDs.

So, it is a confusing picture but we do, fortunately, have mandatory reporting for all serious incidents in the NHS and suicides have to be reported for all referrals to the Tavistock, including those on the waiting lists. Thus we have concrete data which reveals 4 suicides between 2007 and 2020.

Biggs conclusions looked at high rates of autism spectrum disorder in referrals and this group, especially females, have higher rates of suicide. Many of the referrals have competing mental health diagnoses, it could also be the case that the population is skewed in favour of those who had parents motivated to refer because their children exhibited self-harm or suicidal behaviour. This was Biggs, tentative conclusion:

It is crucial to bear in mind the level of completed suicides is 0.03% and reiterate this when politicians bandy about the statistics which claim suicide rates are at epidemic rates. It is also important not to dismiss the reasons people find themselves on this path. Autism, a history of homophobic bullying, eating disorders and experiences of child sexual abuse can all result in a rejection of your sexed body. Children in care are also over-represented at Gender Clinics and at a higher risk of self-harm and suicide. (Article and clip below) 👇

Suicide and Looked after children

Saddest of all is suicide after parental rejection as with the case of Nathan Verhelst who was taught to reject her female body. Rest In Peace.

You can support my work here but please don’t send anything if you are on a low income. Finally, after five years, I have a small income and some financial independence.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on society, women’s , sex based rights, and gay rights. Particularly concerned with referrals of gay, autistic and foster kids to Gender Clinics.


TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

665A1C9E-6117-4E00-84B7-EF9442EA5791Michael has been indomitable in his research into the use of puberty blockers on, ever younger, children.  Michael is an Oxford University academic who researches social movements and ordinary people, driven to extraordinary actions.  He also researches self-harm as a form of social protest.   An interesting background. As you will see from his paper he was told by some woke students to Educate Himself.  So he did! Here’s what he uncovered.

As always I am happy for you to bypass my commentary and access the paper directly  here.  Either way I recommend reading the full paper.

PDF attached in case his work is taken down: Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers

The pressure, on the Tavistock, Gender Identity Service (GIDs) to introduce earlier intervention is well documented.  For neophytes you can can see the tensions, between Tavistock staff  & Lobbyists, in this oral evidence to the Transgender Equality Inquiry.  here.  With contributions from Susie Green, of Mermaids, and Bernadette Wren, of the Tavistock.

The aim of Trans Activists was to get “The Dutch Protocol” embedded in Tavistock practice. This protocol advocated earlier intervention, seen as the key to a more passing  Trans Community.  Blocking puberty was one way to do this, since it halted the process of masculinisation/feminisation.  Publicly Blockers were touted as merely allowing a delay to explore gender identity issues. Based on research this would seem to be pure Public Relations. 

The paper goes into some detail on the activists involved in the campaign to institute this changed treatment protocol.  One of the familiar names is Stephen Whittle.  Whittle is a transman and has played a key role in instituting Transgender Ideology. The best way to pass as a man, it would appear, is to be to behave like the most regressive mysogynist and attack women’s rights. Below are some other key figures together with groups which provided funding.  ( I did a double take at the Servite Sisters! My Uncle was a Servite Brother; which is a Catholic order. Sure enough, it’s a Charity run by Catholic Nuns. Why would Catholic nuns fund blocking puberty?)


Norman Spack was involved in the treatment of Susie Green’s child.  Susie is now the head of Mermaids, the leading UK charity advocating for medicalising children. Parents with children, who have been through this process, are evangelical in their zeal to extend this to other children. I suspect the motivation is to reassure themselves they did the right thing.   The over-investment of older Trans activists, for early transition, looks like retrospective wish fulfilment.


As stated above the argument for puberty blockers had mainly been promulgated as a “pause”  providing a, temporary, halt to the development of sexual characteristics.  So what happened in the Dutch study?  We know that the Tavistock were aware of this study but they didn’t include this fact in their bid for funding and ethical approval. No adolescent withdrew from puberty suppression and all started cross-sex hormone treatment, the first step of  actual gender reassignment (de Vries, Steensma, Doreleijers, et al., 2010) Source. 

Biggs paper highlights the discrepancies in the statements from GIDS clinicians on Puberty Blockers as a pause.  He even highlights near contemporaneous, and contradictory,  statements on the topic.  See Polly Carmichael, from the Children’s BBC programme, I am Leo, juxtaposed with a statement she gave to the Guardian at around the same time. “We just don’t have the evidence…”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Ultimately Polly Carmichael got her wish. The Gender Identity Development Service eventually received ethical approval to administer Puberty Blockers to children.   A first attempt was rejected but, undeterred, the application was made again. This time the Tavistock chose to submit the application to a different ethical approval body.  It was then approved. The initial study was based on participants  from 12 years old. However the  evidence  suggests the actual age of commencement can be as young as 10. [See Michael’s paper for how he deduced this.  Also Dr Aiden Kelly admitting this in my earlier piece TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A)]


The paper illustrates how Tavistock accounts of the actual number of subjects involved have varied. The figure of 44 does not remain constant .  This matters because one of the failings in much of the research, in this field, is a failure to follow up patients long term.  Biggs traces the various numbers used in the public reporting on the study.  Damningly, despite being the custodian of the research project,  the Tavistock does not appear to be keeping adequate records on the experimental subjects or taking the opportunity to rectify the dearth of long term follow-up studies.  A missed opportunity or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation?  Dr Carmichael admits that they lose contact with subjects once referred, at age 18 to the adult services.  She also admits that they have not tracked those given hormone blockers in a single database! Thus the medium and long term consequences are not being tracked.  Despite this look at the growth in numbers being given this treatment and the reduction in the age at commencement.  Moreover changes to names and NHS numbers also make it difficult to track those on the receiving end of this experiment. ⇓⇓⇓.  All set out in the clips below. 


Also note that almost all cases led to cross-sex hormones.  Just as in the Dutch Study. Therefore this was not a pause and, 9 years on, the Clinicians involved must know this.  Interestingly only in May 2020 did the NHS change its own guidance to stop referring to Puberty Blockers as “fully reversible”.


Biggs has some significant criticisms of the project. Only one of which is the failure to meet any reasonable threshold for informed consent by not revealing the seemingly, inevitable progression to Cross Sex hormones.  He also highlights the risks of the use of the drub triptorelin,  whose negative outcomes have either been ignored or supressed.

FD48B0C9-4B68-46CD-A7BF-72272E906350There is more information, in the public domain, about the treatment of dangerous sex offenders, than there is of children put on the same drug. Let that sink in.





Below are a couple of quotes. You can read the full study here  Triptorelin.


You can read a detailed list here of : Side Effects


More details of the impact on male children include a stunting of genitalia and negative impact on sexual function.  Given that any surgeries to create a “neo-vagina” rely on sufficient penile tissue, for the most common techniques, this is another serious concern.


Other damning evidence suggests a negative impact on fertility and even sexual function.


Even from the limited evidence that GIDS has shared, mainly in Abstract Form from presentations at conferences, Biggs argues that negative outcomes have been omitted or downplayed.  Some of these relate to bone density, which should be increasing during puberty.  Others relate to reported psycho-social functioning and even suicidal thoughts.


In the light of the concerns raised by the scant evidence in the public domain why has their been no detailed report over 9 years since the project commenced?  Biggs raises some serious questions about how a “research project” , instituted in 2011, has been allowed to progress to 2020 without publishing a full evaluation.


Increasing media coverage and the beginnings of political scrutiny may finally be about to shine a spotlight on this experimental treatment.  Currently there is an ex-patient, Keira Bell, in the process of taking the Tavistock to Judicial Review over the medical intervention she received.  The Safeguarding Lead is to take the Tavistock to court after being informed that safeguarding information was being deliberately withheld from her. Another former member of staff , Susan Evans, commenced legal action over the treatment of children.  The Cass Review will look at Puberty Blockers on behalf of NICE. Liz Truss has signalled a change of direction over the treatment of under 18’s.

More politicians are also waking up to this issue.

An Ex- Labour peer, and Doctor of Medicine, Lord Moonie, has been raising issues on the medicalisation of kids and the impact on women’s spaces for well over a year. (Banned from twitter & resigned from Labour over this issue.)  Latterly a Conservative MP , Jackie Doyle-Price has begun to speak up.  Baroness Nicholson another Conservative Peer has been a tour de force in raising issues about the creeping influence of Gender Identity Ideology.  Another Medically trained peer, Lord Lucas raised a question in the House of Lords in May 2019.


At the time of that question we were told the data would be available in the next 12 months.  We have heard that before.  However Lord Lucas is on the case and assured me he intends to follow this up.


Michael acknowledges the support he had in putting this document together which I include here: 991912D2-F98F-4DC7-AA4F-D9383DBBB3EA

I will leave you with the original patient who triggered the establishment of The Dutch Protocol in the early 1990’s.  2B3693F3-297D-443B-92AE-CB54E31CC72B

Patient B has been followed all the way up to age 35.  One would assume that the outcome would have been positive and indeed patient B is highlighted as a success.   Indeed they say they do not regret their transition.  This does not look like a good outcome to me and I fear we will have many more before someone, finally, halts this experiment.   Allow me to also make the observation that if were talking about a biological male there is no way an absence of a healthy sex life would be regarded as positive.