French Senate Votes to Limit Puberty Blockers for Minors

A two-year delay? Well, it's a step back to sanity and a well-ordered society based on natural law, but only a step. Just ban the abomination!

From The European Conservative

By Hélène de Lauzun, PhD

A two-year delay from first consultation will be required for minors who think they are transgender.

Following in the footsteps of other European countries, France is laying the foundations for a legislative framework designed to protect children from the onslaught of transgenderism by restricting the use of puberty blockers by minors. However, the law passed remains limited in scope.

The bill was proposed at the initiative of senators from Les Républicains (LR), who were concerned about the scale of the phenomenon of gender dysphoria, leading to extensive medical treatment and causing irreversible damage to children. The vote brought together the LR senators, some of the centrist senators, and the two senators from the Rassemblement National. The Greens attempted to reject the text before examination, but without success. 

The four-article text strictly regulates the prescription of puberty blockers to minors. They may only be administered in specialised centres of reference listed by decree, and subject to a minimum delay of two years after the first consultation and “verification by the medical team that there are no contraindications and that the patient is capable of discernment.” However, this is a modified version of the original proposal. Originally, the text purely and simply prohibited the prescription of these puberty blockers to minors. From now on, only hormone treatments and so-called ‘reassignment’ surgery will be prohibited for minors. To trans activists, however, the two-year time limit is tantamount to a ban. 

The authorisation with a two-year delay was added at the initiative of the LR senators themselves. 

A fierce ideological battle took place in the Senate during the discussions leading up to the vote. The government explained that it was not in favour of this proposed law, insofar as it was based on insufficient scientific evidence and reflected a ‘dogmatic’ approach, in the words of the deputy minister for health. “Everything I heard showed me that we were taking a dogmatic, subjective approach in which scientific or medical arguments were of little importance, and that we needed to score political points,” he explained.

The Left has vigorously attacked the parliamentary committee behind the bill, made up exclusively of members of the LR party. Socialist senator Laurence Rossignol, former minister for families, children, and women’s rights, accused the Right of having a ‘very ideological’ and ‘very civilisational’ approach to the transgender issue. ‘This is Chapter II of the Great Replacement’, she denounced. These comments were deemed insulting by Bruno Retailleau, leader of the LR parliamentary group in the Senate, who was keen to point out that many countries are now changing their legislation to limit the damage done to children by transitions carried out too early. The balanced position of the communists in the debate is worth noting: the chair of the communist group recommended abstention, on the grounds that ‘the appeal of progressivism cannot be a political guide’.

Before the vote, two left and centre senators opposing the bill read out letters from parents of children wanting to make the transition. “We could have read you texts from parents of children who want to de-transition and it would have been just as moving,” retorted a senator from LR.

The debates also took place in a climate of tension following the publication of an essay by Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern on transgenderism, which aroused both public furor and an offensive of rare violence from transgender activist circles against the two authors, who were accused of ‘transphobia’—an accusation also levelled against the senators behind the bill. This context may explain why the Senators ended up voting in favour of a law that is more limited in scope than the initial bill—as if they had submitted to the injunctions of transgender rights groups.