A bombshell article by @writingblock challenges claims by activists that the science supporting the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors is "settled" and that the use of puberty blockers and hormones in transgender kids is "evidence based." 🧵⬇️ press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/t…
Many argue that giving puberty blockers and hormones to trans minors is uncontroversial & backed by high-quality science. Block's reporting disputes this. Swedish health authorities, for example, say the risks "currently outweigh the possible benefits". 2/ press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/t…
@glaad, in its recent protest before the @nytimes building, echoed a common refrain: that "the science is settled" regarding giving puberty blockers and hormones to trans-identifying minors. @writingblock's peer-reviewed reporting challenges this claim. 3/ press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/t…
The prescription of hormones to trans-identifying minors is often framed as a choice of life on meds vs death by suicide. But researchers have not actually shown that hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria impacts death by suicide. 5/ press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/t…
@HRC said in a press release today that "ALL gender-affirming care is age appropriate and medically necessary." But in the UK, health experts found there's "scarce & inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making" for kids with dysphoria. 6/ press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/t…
Mark Helfand of Oregon Health & Science University criticized @wpath's recommendations for treating #transgender minors, including a lack of grading system to assess the quality of scientific evidence backing the guidelines. #trans 7/ press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/t…
At an October meeting of the AAP, @writingblock reports, @DrScottHadland of Harvard Med said, "Ten thousand pediatricians stand in solidarity for trans and gender diverse kids & their families to receive evidence-based, lifesaving, individualized care." 8/ press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/t…
Gordon Guyatt (@GuyattGH) of McMaster University found "serious problems" with the Endocrine Society's guidelines for treating #trans kids, such as making strong recommendations based on weak evidence--meaning they should not be called "evidence based". 9/ press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/t…
In contrast to @DrScottHadland, @GuyattGH said, "When there's been a rigorous systematic review of the evidence" about treating #trans kids "and the bottom line is 'we don't know,' anybody who then claims they *do* know is not being evidence based." 10/ press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/t…
While myriad medical organizations in the US back prescribing puberty blockers & hormones to trans-identifying minors, standards abroad are very different. Sweden did systematic reviews in '15 and '22, found evidence was "insufficient and inconclusive."11/ press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/t…
The Endocrine Society (@TheEndoSociety) commissioned 2 systematic reviews for its clinical practice guideline for treating #trans adolescents with sex steroids and found the quality of the evidence regarding health risks was "low" or "very low". 12/ press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/t…
@MattWalshBlog, who doesn't so much debate the science behind care for trans minors as douse the field with gasoline & set it on fire, has made the topic so combustible in Tennessee, he teed up the politicization of #HIV prevention there, I reported: 14/ nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-ou…
@writingblock's assessment of the evidence backing standards of care for treating gender dysphoria in #trans minors comes a week after activists (eg: @glaad) and writers have pressured @nytimes to refrain from the type of reporting she has done. 16/ glaad.org/new-york-times…
The emailed responses to this thread are starting to come in. This is new: now I'm a Nazi and have autism to boot.
More charming exchanges with the readers of this tweet thread. Have a good one, @zunetopia.
Kindly do not come to this thread disrespectfully. I will not tolerate malicious statements toward anyone and the misgendering of transgender people.
Also, for anyone coming to this thread who thinks they know who I am, what I think or believe or what I'm about, do take note that I do not share my personal opinions about many issues on Twitter. I invite you to read my reporting on LGBTQ issues: benryan.net/lgbtq.html
@HRC will fly an airplane banner down the Hudson River protesting @nytimes coverage of #transgender issues today:
@Esqueer_ claims @writingblock can’t count, but the figure she cited in her BMJ article is the total number of minors receiving hormones and puberty blockers during that period, whereas the chart refers only to puberty blockers.
I get a lot of venomous emails, but I’d say this one regarding my tweet thread about the strength of the science behind the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors is one of the most heinous. Sadly for this person’s hopes, I was cured of cancer and have a 5% recurrence chance.
Also: it sucks for that person, but no one dies of testicular cancer anymore.
@meetzow wants me to die because I am engaging in science reporting and have illuminated the weakness of the science backing the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors.
Also, gay people on Twitter get hit with a lot of tweets like this in the Musk era: @UIgliori
People tweet this to suggest that reduced stigma is the sole reason for the apparent tripling in trans identification between older adults & youths. But I think we can agree that gender identity is far more complex and driven by more complex factors than left vs right-handedness.
If only this @ryanlcooper@TheProspect podcast had brought on academic experts to discuss youth gender care science. Instead, @RottenInDenmark provides a misleading overview that, for example, fails to note Finland & Sweden disagree with the US on this. 1/ prospect.org/podcasts/02-20…
@RyanCooper claims that what @jessesingal says about youth gender care science "makes no sense scientifically." Except Singal knows the science better than just about anyone, as he assiduously demonstrates. And his coverage is way more nuanced than Hobbes claims. 2/
My favorite is @ryanlcooper saying the best thing for science journos to do is: "You go into the studies to talk to the scientists, you don't talk to individual people, who may and probably do have an ax to grind," as he interviews two individual non-scientists about science. 3/
Hobbes himself is extraordinarily ideological, meanwhile. 4/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Debunking podcaster Michael Hobbes has a new episode of his podcast If Books Could Kill, about the US v. Skrmetti Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee's ban on pediatric gender-transition treatment.
Michael Hobbes, referring to a video, published in 2022 by @MattWalshBlog, of a Vanderbilt doctor talking about the money that gender-transition surgeries bring in, including bottom surgeries: “Bottom surgeries are essentially not performed on children," Hobbes says. "So the fact that she's talking about bottom surgeries here makes it very clear that she's talking about adults.”
This depends on your definition of "essentially." Phallopasties are not recommended by @WPATH for minors, but vaginoplasties are. Dr. Marci Bowers, a gender-affirming surgeon and a former WPATH president, recommends that trans girls get a vaginoplasty the summer before they leave for college, when they are 17 or 18.
A 2023 paper on a limited dataset of US minor patients did find evidence of one vaginoplasty in 2021. This suggests that if the study authors had access to all records in the nation, they would identify more such surgeries in minors.
Consequently, Hobbes is incorrect to presume that the Vanderbilt doctor was not referring to minors in the speech that Walsh published. It is entirely possible she was.
If, for the sake of argument, no one can prove that pediatric gender-transition treatment prevents suicide death only because such deaths are so rare, then why has this treatment been sold, first and foremost, as “lifesaving”?
Why have people who have called that claim into question been savagely attacked and sidelined?
Marci Bowers, former head of WPATH, herself told me last year that suicide death has never been a good metric of the success of this treatment.
Debunking podcaster Michael Hobbes is himself one of the prime sources of misinformation about pediatric gender-transition treatment. He has routinely falsely claimed that there is no evidence that children get these drugs after absent or cursory assessment periods. There is copious evidence that this happens routinely at some of the top gender clinics in the nation. Despite all this evidence, Hobbes has never acknowledged his fault.
But you can see here that he is combining his longstanding claim about assessments with a claim about what he characterizes as false claims that there are large numbers of kids getting these drugs. That question should not necessarily be conflated with the assessment question.
About 1 in 1,000 youth with private health insurance went on cross sex hormones by age 17 between 2018 and 2022. That number was higher for natal girls and was probably higher for all youth by the end of that period.
One thing that has concerned some people is not necessarily the number of kids getting these drugs, but the rate of increase of that number. They have been concerned over where that figure might end up.
If suicide deaths are so rare even in youth with gender dysphoria, then why have leading gender clinicians routinely told parents that absent blockers and hormones, their child was extremely likely to wind up dead? That’s what the mantra “Would you rather have a dead son or a live daughter?” implies. We now know from the leading litigator in this field that that threat was a false one, at the very least in the suggestion of how likely suicide death was in the first place.
Debunking podcaster Michael Hobbes, a prime source of misinformation about pediatric gender-transition treatment, slams @HelenLewis of @TheAtlantic for criticizing people such as him.
Ten years ago Thursday, the movement for gay and lesbian equality scored a victory that only a decade before had seemed unimaginable. We won equal rights to civil marriage in every state in the country. In 2020 came another stunning win. In a majority opinion written by one of President Trump’s nominees, Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court found that gay men, lesbians and transgender men and women are covered under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and protected from employer discrimination.
In 2024, the Republican Party removed opposition to marriage equality from its platform, and the current Republican Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, is a married gay man with two children. Gay marriage is backed by around 70 percent of Americans, and discrimination against gay men, lesbians and transgender people is opposed by 80 percent. As civil rights victories go, it doesn’t get more decisive or comprehensive than this.
Debunking podcaster Michael Hobbes has issued a stream of false or misleading claims about the Times article about the @ACLU’s tangled path to Skrmetti—the SCOTUS case on pediatric gender-transition treatment.
Allow me to demonstrate how wrong Hobbes is.
🧵⬇️
The thing about conspiracies is that sometimes they actually occur. Subpoenaed records show WPATH squelched systematic reviews of gender care they commissioned when the results did not support their advocacy movement.
And Hobbes, perhaps because he doesn’t know or understand what those reviews are about, issues a sleight of hand by suggesting that the reviews were irrelevant since there is no evidence kids are getting rushed into surgeries. But that’s not what the reviews were about. They were about the strength of the evidence backing gender-transition treatments.
One of Hobbes’ methods is he believes that all the supposedly bad-faith actors he scrutinizes work out of a common playbook.
The subpoenaed records show that WPATH leaders went well beyond trying to keep their work from being weaponized. They coordinated with Chase Strangio and others at the ACLU to draft their trans-care guidelines for the purpose of helping them win lawsuits, even as WPATH leaders themselves were already directly involved in such suits. And absent scientific justification, they included words like “medically necessary” in the guidelines for the purpose of securing insurance coverage.
But in Hobbes’ telling, the only bad-faith actor in this story is the Alabama attorney general for uncovering these records that revealed these actions on WPATH’s part.
This raises the question: Should those who create medical guidelines be transparent and remain honest with doctors and the public about the ways that the science is lacking?