New Zealand High Court // Ulrich Lange // Wikimedia Commons
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
New Zealand’s leading authority on transgender health care is celebrating a sweeping victory after successfully challenging the country’s puberty blocker ban for trans youth, the Court ruled today.
The Court ruled it is incumbent on the Health Minister and Cabinet to decide what regulations should be implemented to govern the safe use of puberty blockers, but that the way they had done so was unlawful.
“We’re incredibly relieved that the Court has come to this finding,” said Jennifer Shields, president of the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA), in a press release.
“Moves to restrict transgender people’s right to access healthcare are rooted in disinformation and have massively significant impacts on the health and wellbeing of transgender people,” she continued. “I’m pleased that the Court agreed that this ban was an act of unjustified discrimination.”
The saga began in November 2024, when New Zealand health officials published a brief casting doubt on the efficacy of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria. A year later, they moved to ban the issuance of new puberty blocker prescriptions when used to alleviate gender dysphoria in trans youth.
Initially, the ban allowed exceptions for clinical trials or for those at risk of imminent harm, although patients currently taking puberty blockers were exempt.
However, following pressure from conservative “anti-woke” activists, the policy struck those carve-outs. This means the ban was even more absolute than the fallout from the Cass Review in the United Kingdom.
That document, too, was heavily cited and debated throughout New Zealand’s proceedings; it is a highly contentious, politically charged document rebuked by leading experts in the field of gender-affirming care. (“The Ministry also considered the Cass Review in its Evidence Brief and concluded it did not warrant a prohibition on new prescriptions.”)
“Decisions about this healthcare are best made by patients and their doctors,” PATHA Vice-President Dr. Elizabeth McElrea said. “This judgement means that as clinicians we can continue to prescribe GnRH agonists in line with best practice and without fear of retribution for doing the right thing.”
PATHA sued to stop the provision before it could take full effect. The High Court sided with PATHA, ruling the ban was “unjustified and disproportionate discrimination” on the basis of a medical condition. It declined to weigh in on whether it constituted discrimination based on sex.
The Court also found that the government failed to adequately incorporate public input because it never consulted those most directly impacted by the ban: transgender youth.
Perhaps the most notable facet of the ruling, however, was the internal democratic and scientific processes it relied upon, and how starkly that contrasts with these same discussions happening in places like the United States and the United Kingdom. For example, even New Zealand’s Minister of Health—who pulled the trigger on the ban—“accepts transgender identities are real, that transgender people are part of the natural diversity of human existence, and that being trans is not pathological or a mental illness,” legal documents read.
Finally, the Court refused to fuel the manufactured crisis around these interventions, declaring: “[T]here can be no doubt that it has the short-term benefit of preventing the distress caused to gender dysphoric/incongruent youth experiencing permanent changes to their body that do not align with their gender identity.”
While conservative forces continue to erode the landscape of gender-affirming care, the New Zealand ruling is no small feat for the countless families who have been anxious in wait as this legal battle made its way through the courts.
“Such an act of discrimination is something no young person should have to experience,” said Avery Zavoda, PATHA’s Secretary. “It’s now a matter of law that restricting trans young people’s access to puberty blockers is discriminatory.”
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.