Puberty blockers, Trojan horses and real marriage

There is growing outrage that powerful puberty blockers are being lined up for children as young as ten under new NHS trials. The same drugs declared as unsuitable for routine use in gender clinics are being quietly reintroduced under the respectable label of ‘research’, in line with NHS England’s implementation of the Cass Review recommendations. For a gender-confused child, the route to these drugs is now to sign up as an experimental subject.

This was always built into the official review of children’s gender services that so many hailed as a breakthrough. It erroneously accepted the idea of a special category of ‘trans children’ and called for a “formal research programme” on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. It acknowledged a weak evidence base, yet still recommended these trials. The result was never going to be an end to medicalisation, only a new framework for it.

This same Trojan horse pattern appears again and again. Relationships, Sex and Health Education guidance tells parents they may ask to see materials, but drops minimum age limits and encourages that same-sex relationships be presented as equivalent to man-woman marriage. At one point, civil partnerships were sold as a modest compromise, yet within a few years Parliament had redefined marriage. Surrogacy and gamete donation are normalised in official guidance, whilst children are increasingly brought into the world already separated from at least one biological parent to meet adult demands.

Whenever law and policy step away from marriage as the public union of a man and a woman, ordered for the bearing and raising of children, reality is flattened. A child being brought up by their own married mum and dad is downgraded to just one ‘family form’ among many.

Underneath sits the same demand: stop saying that children, as a rule, should be raised by their own married mother and father.

Coalition for Marriage remains almost alone as a national, non-party organisation that consistently makes these connections in public and refuses to dilute the message of one-man one-woman marriage to suit fashion. From civil partnerships to same-sex ‘marriage’, from surrogacy to puberty blockers, the same underlying question keeps surfacing: is man-woman marriage a genderless lifestyle contract, or the foundational bond that best protects children and anchors society?

Real marriage has not lost its power simply because the law has lost its nerve. And C4M will not stop defending it!