On Sunday, December 21, 2025, the Northern Territory (NT) joined Queensland as the second Australian jurisdiction to ban puberty blockers for transgender children under 18, igniting a fierce national debate over the rights and wellbeing of trans youth. The NT’s Country Liberal Party government announced the ban, aligning itself with a growing international movement that questions the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming medical interventions for minors. But as policymakers tout the move as a safeguard for children, critics warn that the decision could have devastating consequences for a small but vulnerable group of young people.
NT Health Minister Steve Edgington, who spearheaded the policy, said the government was acting to protect children from what he called “dangerous ideologically driven practices” with potentially irreversible consequences. “Territory kids deserve to grow up free from these dangerous ideologically driven practices with irreversible consequences,” Edgington asserted in his official statement, as reported by the Australian Associated Press. He added that the ban would affect only a “handful of teenagers” who had been accessing puberty blockers through the public health system.
Puberty blockers are medications that interrupt the production of sex hormones—oestrogen and testosterone—in adolescents, temporarily halting physical changes such as the onset of periods, breast or hair growth, and voice deepening. For many transgender youth, these drugs can offer time and space to explore their identity before making more permanent medical decisions. The NT’s move follows Queensland, which in October 2025 reinstated a ban on puberty blockers after a brief legal reprieve. Queensland had originally imposed the ban in January of the same year, only for it to be overturned by a landmark court ruling. The Queensland government extended its ban again on Friday, December 19, 2025, with Health Minister Tim Nicholls stating the pause would remain until results of a major UK trial are available—an outcome not expected until 2031.
The NT’s policy shift marks a significant departure from Edgington’s earlier stance in March, when he indicated that no changes were being considered. According to AAP, the government’s decision was influenced by similar bans in New Zealand and several European countries, reflecting a broader international trend of caution regarding gender-affirming care for minors.
Yet, the ban has sparked immediate backlash from medical professionals, advocacy groups, and families of transgender youth. Eloise Brook, chief executive of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health, criticized the policy as a dangerous overreach. “The Northern Territory has simply fallen in line with the Queensland ban, making the same mistakes, the same assumptions and ignoring the same kind of evidence that experts have been putting forward,” Brook told AAP. She argued that the greatest risk to trans children globally comes from blanket bans rather than careful, evidence-based medical care. Brook also noted that, at present, there is no indication that other Australian jurisdictions will follow NT and Queensland’s lead, suggesting these states will remain outliers in the national landscape.
The timing of the NT’s ban coincided with the release of an independent review by Professor Ruth Vine, which found that the evidence base for hormone therapy in transgender youth is limited, with a lack of robust data on long-term risks or benefits. This review has become a touchstone for both sides of the debate. Supporters of the ban cite the review’s caution as justification for pausing access to puberty blockers, while opponents point out that Vine’s report did not recommend a blanket ban and instead called for more research and careful, individualized decision-making.
Earlier in December, 415 medical professionals, academics, and union representatives signed an open letter urging the Queensland government to reinstate access to hormone therapy, arguing that puberty blockers are a safe and often lifesaving intervention. Jemma Clifton of LGBTIQ+Health Australia described the medications as essential for giving young people “time to explore who they were with professional guidance.” She emphasized that for many trans youth, puberty blockers are not just a matter of comfort—they can be a critical lifeline during a period of profound vulnerability.
Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody also weighed in, warning that the bans would cause significant distress to transgender and gender-diverse young people, their families, and carers. “Denying access to this care risks real and lasting harm,” Cody said, according to AAP. “These decisions are not abstract, they affect the lives, mental health and safety of young people who are already among the most vulnerable in our community.” Cody further expressed concern that the Queensland government was ignoring the nuanced findings of the Vine review, which stopped short of endorsing a full ban.
The legal battle over puberty blockers is far from over. Following the reinstatement of Queensland’s ban, the LGBTI Legal Service has vowed to pursue further legal challenges. Their resolve was strengthened after Justice Peter Callaghan overturned the initial Queensland ban, citing that Queensland Health executives were given only 22 minutes to consider the directive to pause puberty blockers—a process he deemed inadequate for such a consequential decision.
On the political front, NT shadow attorney-general Chansey Paech accused the government of turning the care of transgender youth into a political battleground. “The government has chosen to single out a vulnerable group, turning their care into a political battleground rather than treating them with dignity and respect,” Paech stated, echoing concerns from many in the advocacy and medical communities.
Despite the heated debate, the NT government maintains that its actions are in the best interest of children, citing international precedents and the precautionary principle. Edgington noted that several European countries and New Zealand have adopted similar restrictions, reflecting a global reevaluation of gender-affirming care for minors. Still, critics argue that these moves ignore the lived experiences and medical needs of transgender youth, many of whom already face significant barriers to care and support.
The issue has galvanized both sides of the debate, with hundreds signing petitions and open letters, and advocacy groups preparing for further legal and political battles. The outcome of the UK trial, expected in 2031, may ultimately shape the future of gender-affirming care not just in Australia, but around the world. Until then, the lives of a “handful of teenagers”—and the broader transgender community—hang in the balance, caught between competing visions of protection, autonomy, and evidence-based care.
As the NT and Queensland press ahead with their bans, the rest of Australia watches closely, weighing the risks and responsibilities of legislating on one of the most sensitive and contested issues in modern health policy.
