UCSF’s Jack Turban (@jack_turban) and Yale’s Meredithe McNamara recently criticized a new Finnish study that further weakens the “suicide prevention” narrative.
Their criticisms are wrong and hypocritical.
Here’s why. 🧵
To recall, the Finnish study found that suicide in gender clinic-referred (GR) youths <23 was uncommon (0.3%), and when the model adjusted for severe psychiatric comorbidities, there was no statistically significant difference in suicide rates between GR youth and controls. /2
The study's implication is that suicide prevention should focus on comorbid psychiatric problems that frequently occur in dysphoric youth, not on modifying the body’s sex characteristics. /3
Turban said the Finns are “very stupid or intentionally misleading" because they controlled for psychiatric problems. His unstated assumption is that psychiatric problems are simply the result of “unaffirmed” gender identity—also known as the “minority stress” hypothesis. /4
Turban's use of "minority stress" is untested, clinically dangerous (as we've seen from whistleblowers and other sources), and self-serving. I’m happy to debate it with him if he so wishes. /5
Littman, Biggs and I touch on the issue briefly here:
Turban’s adherence to "minority stress" is so dogmatic that he once claimed that it causes autism-like symptoms, which explains the overrepresentation of such symptoms in gender dysphoric/trans-identified youth. In effect, Turban claimed that by transitioning kids you can eliminate autism-like traits. /6
Turban’s argument drew criticism from fellow gender clinicians, transgender researchers and transgender advocates—including the Dutch pioneers of pediatric gender medicine themselves. Turban’s argument that what looks like autism is really untreated gender dysphoria, they said, is “counterproductive and not contributing to better care for those who need it.” /7
A group of 21 trans-advocate researchers also wrote to the journal (@JAACAP) about Turban’s paper, stating, “We are concerned that perpetuating misunderstanding about the co-occurrence [of autistic traits and gender dysphoria] places individuals at risk.” /8
To state the obvious, any stat analysis that fails to control for confounders is flawed. Severe mental illness is a key predictor of suicide. If one does not control for it, how can one distinguish possible drivers of suicide (e.g., gender distress vs bipolar disorder)? /9
Meredithe McNamara, who chimed in through trans activist Erin Reed’s blog, claimed that controlling for psychiatric problems in gender medicine is like controlling for hours worked in the analysis of pay gender gap. It’s possible, McNamara says, that women work fewer hours (and thus on average make less than men) because of "gendered expectations" around how much to work. /10
McNamara’s logic is flawed. If there is a disparity between men and women in terms of average work hours, this obviously must be accounted for when comparing pay. That doesn't mean it has to be the final word. If McNamara is right about "gendered expectations" (whatever she means by that) shaping work hours, fine, define that murky term, test it empirically, and be open to the possibility that women work fewer hours for reasons other than sexism. But to suggest that researchers shouldn't control for hours worked is silly and unscientific. It's reasoning backwards from your preferred conclusion ("gendered expectations"). /11
Back to the Finnish study. Could the Finnish statistical model be further improved? If Jack has a suggestion, he should write a letter to the editor and suggest his critique. In calling his international colleagues “stupid” and “misleading,” Jack may be giving a masterclass in projection. Let’s examine his own research. /12
In his study on puberty blockers’ effect on suicidality, Turban used the exact method he is accusing the Finnish researchers of using. If a variable was associated with suicidality, he controlled for it in the model. This included family support, employment, income, relationships, and even gender identity. /13
The 2020 study was subject to multiple criticisms. One was that Turban did not control for mental illness, measured in the study by the “severe psychological distress” variable (score of 13+ on the K6 scale). Why did Turban control for other variables associated with suicidality but not this one? Perhaps he feared that the "live-saving” properties of puberty blockers might disappear if severe mental illnesses was controlled for. /14
Could the Finnish model have been further improved upon? Likely, yes. If Turban has better ideas, he can suggest them through respectful, scholarly debate, just as dozens of researchers (myself included) have written letters to the editor to discuss the flaws in his research. That’s how science works. /15
The dishonesty and incompetence of prominent gender clinicians like Turban and McNamara never ceases to amaze me. I expect this from activists who pass themselves off as journalists and who consistently spread misinformation, but Turban and McNamara are physicians who treat children and have the power to shape medical policy. /16
You’d think that activists like Turban would be extremely pleased at learning that suicide (which is different from “suicidality”) is actually very uncommon among trans-identified young people, even if it is elevated relative to the general population. Instead, their response to the Finnish study and others like it (e.g., Biggs 2022) has been disappointment, even outrage. /17
That tells you something about why they use the suicide narrative. It’s not because they actually believe trans-identified teens are at high risk for suicide and want to prevent it. It’s because the threat of suicide is useful: for bullying parents into agreeing to risky and experimental medical interventions for their kids, for pressuring policymakers to allow gender clinicians regulate themselves, and for getting allied journalists to feel that they too are life-saving heroes. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEWS: The Federal Trade Commission has just announced its lawsuit (with four states) against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. 👇
The FTC alleges that WPATH "misled parents and children about the medical consensus and medical necessity, as well as the safety and effectiveness" of gender transition interventions (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries), "in violation of the FTC Act."
The complaint has been filed in the federal district court for the northern district of Texas, a traditionally friendly venue for such actions.
A widely cited study published in the prestigious @NatureHumBehav claimed that “anti-transgender laws” encouraged teen suicide attempts.
A new methodological review dismantles that finding.
New from me in @cityjournal
In 2024, amidst a wave of state legislation on transgender issues, a leading academic journal published a study claiming to find that that legislation increased suicide attempts by up to 72%.
The finding was blasted all over left-of-center media, with even some healthcare outlets uncritically citing its conclusion as well.
NEW: Last week, the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee held a hearing on pediatric gender medicine.
The hearing was predictable and largely unremarkable but for a very curious, and potentially very important, omission. 🧵
At no point did the Senate Democrats or their expert witness, @shannonminter5 of the National Center for LGBTQ (formerly Lesbian) Rights (@NCLRights), refer to or cite the authority of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH (@wpath).
In 2023, Minter, an attorney, testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the same topic.
Minter's submitted written testimony from that hearing cited WPATH and its Standards of Care, v. 8.
NEW: Two coauthors of the HHS review on treatment for pediatric gender dysphoria argue in @JAMAPediatrics that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid "should carefully consider whether the proposed rules may be improved by the inclusion of a grandfather clause." 🧵
Kathleen McDeavitt, a psychiatrist at Baylor College of Medicine, and Moti Gorin, a philosopher and bioethicist at Colorado State University, are coauthors (with me) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' peer-reviewed report from last year.
The centerpiece of the HHS review was an "umbrella review" (systematic review of systematic reviews) which confirmed the finding that pediatric medical transition is based on very low certainty evidence (using GRADE).
NEW: @jessesingal with new revelations, based on FOIAs, about the Johanna Olson-Kennedy-led, @NIH-funded ($10m) research initiative on pediatric gender medicine. 🧵
NIH was misled with help from @wpath and @TheEndoSociety.
Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues intended to study the effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors.
NIH initially "expressed qualms" about the proposed study being observational rather experimental. Singal explains the difference, and why it matters.
With support from @wpath and @TheEndoSociety, however, Olson-Kennedy told NIH that the treatments are known to work and that withholding them (i.e., having a control group) would be unethical.
I'm often asked: “What makes pediatric gender doctors do what they do?"
Good question.
Here are 9 overlooked factors, to add to the obvious one: ideological agreement with the “gender-affirming” outlook.
These are unsystematic observations, so take with a grain of salt. 🧵
1. Lack of experience. Early-career doctors lack clinical experience, a critical corrective mechanism to the abstractions they absorb in the classroom. Also, being young, they typically don’t have kids themselves and therefore have not experienced the ways of developmentally typical children and teens. If a young clinician lacks these experiences but constantly sees trans-identified patients, it's easy to see how s/he would have a skewed understanding of human sexual development.
2. Action bias. Medicine—and, some would argue, most of healing—often consists of not doing anything, counting on the body’s natural tendency to heal itself while watchfully waiting to see if/when intervention is needed. For adolescents in the throes of puberty, time and experience typically build resilience and mitigate distress. It’s tempting for inexperienced healers to want to “do something” and to equate inaction with not helping or even harming.