Quoting the spectator destroys any kind of argument you're trying to make. The Spectator isn't a credible source for any medical information, especially for anything about GIDS and GICS.
They're an explicitly anti-trans publication, and have posted many articles railing against trans acceptance.
James Kirkup spends his days posting anti-trans material on twitter.
Because he's driven by his ideology of hate he makes a load of mistakes throughout this article. For example:
> Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
This isn't talking about the effects of hormone suppressants, it's talking about the psychological harm of discontinued transition for people with gender dysphoria. If you start a course of treatment thinking you're finally on a pathway to full transition, and then you have to stop for some reason, that stoppage causes harm.
Another example is the way he claims to be talking about puberty suppressants, but then links the list off effects for cross-sex hormones. Those are never given to people under 16 in England, so they're not relevant to a discussion of puberty suppressants.
> why has the NHS so significantly changed its main publication on hormone treatment for children without any announcement or fanfare?
Because that's how the NHS website works. This is, frankly, a silly point.
> Given that the NHS now says that hormone therapy for gender-variant children has unknown long-term effects on the physical and mental health of those children, why is the NHS still using such treatments on children?
We don't know if these are harmful or not (but all the evidence we have so far suggests not). But we do know that denying children access to these meds causes harm. There's not much difference here between puberty suppressants and many other meds used for children. We don't know the long term effects of a bunch of meds, but you don't hear the Spectator ever talking about those meds.