Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices is a report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Washington Post Commentary;
Critics will note that many of these contributors question the evidence for pediatric medical transition, though that was fairly obvious from the report itself. But these are not ideological cranks; they are thoughtful researchers. Their core finding — that the evidence for these interventions is highly uncertain — echoes the results of systematic reviews in other countries. None of the peer reviews of the HHS report ultimately rebut that conclusion.
Reasonable people can dispute what to do about that fact. Critics of the “gender-affirming” model argue that the evidence does not reach the bar required to justify tampering with puberty, given known side effects such as infertility. Then there are unknown risks, such as what it does to developing adolescent brains and bodies. Many proponents acknowledge that more and better research is needed, but they argue the preponderance of the studies that are available suggests these treatments help.
Far too many people have behaved unreasonably in this debate. Some who favor these therapies have attacked anyone who suggests their data is too weak to justify current medical practice, and more troublingly, may have delayed or suppressed publication of research that failed to show clear benefits. Meanwhile, some critics have resorted to demeaning or hostile rhetoric. Indeed, the Trump administration’s executive order that gave birth to the HHS report was titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”
This is an empirical question involving vulnerable children, not a political football match. Both sides need to acknowledge the uncertainties, lay out the arguments for intervening or not and support the kind of rigorous, comprehensive research program that should have been used to validate these treatments — before they were given to thousands of children.