NEW: Azeen Ghorayshi reports in the @nytimes that prominent gender clinician Johanna Olson-Kennedy of @ChildrensLA has refused to publish data from a study on puberty blockers, fearing that the unimpressive results will be "weaponized" by critics of "gender-affirming care." 🧵
Olson-Kennedy told the Times that the kids didn't improve because their mental health was "in really good shape" at the start of the study.
As Ghorayshi notes, this seems to contradict what Olson-Kennedy et al. reported in 2022 about the study's cohort at baseline.
Olson-Kennedy fears the study's results could be cited by critics of pediatric sex "change" in court cases. She doesn't seem to think that, as a medical researcher and clinician, her primary responsibility is to her current and future patients.
Doctors as agents of lawfare.
Ghorayshi's report is helpful in holding members of the gender Rx industry accountable, but it also has at least three problems.
First, Ghorayshi mentions the reported findings of the Dutch puberty blocking study but not the highly important critique of those findings, nor that systematic reviews (e.g., NICE 2020) have found it to be unreliable due to risk of bias.
Second, Ghorayshi mentions the reported findings of the NIH-funded cross-sex hormone study but doesn't mention that the boys showed no improvement while the girls' improvement was very small. Nor does she mention the authors' HARK-ing and goalpost shifting. Critical problems.
Finally, it's disappointing to see the Times continue to refer to the kids given Rx as "transgender adolescents." This isn't a neutral term. Whether these kids "are transgender," or what it means to say such a thing, is half the debate in a nutshell.
Neutral terms for journalists who want to remain independent of the controversy and not (intentionally or unintentionally) put their thumb on the scale:
Adolescents with gender dysphoria.
Adolescents who identify as transgender.
🚨While attention has been focused on medical groups backing off from gender surgeries in minors and a $2M detransitioner lawsuit, an important exchange has taken place in Stat News Opinion First between authors and critics of the HHS report on pediatric gender dysphoria.
👇
Last week, a group of self-described “pediatric bioethicists” and advocates for pediatric medical transition (PMT), including Yale Medicine’s Meredithe McNamara, criticized the HHS report, writing that “analysis of its poor ethical reasoning remains urgently needed.”
Today, a group of HHS report authors responded, explaining why the report’s reasoning is consistent with widely accepted principles of medical ethics and pointing to serious flaws in the McNamara group’s article.
Thousands of U.S. parents have consented to having surgeons remove their daughters' breasts after being assured that their daughters were at serious risk of suicide otherwise.
Now, the incoming president of WPATH says mastectomy "in and of itself" doesn't prevent suicide.
This is the result of our data analysis of U.S. insurance claims. A bare minimum of 5,200 teen girls had their breasts amputated as part of a "gender-affirming" procedure between 2017 and 2023.
1/ As @abigailandwords correctly notes in @NRO, the @APApsychiatric agreed to participate in the peer-review process and condemned the report for overlooking 16 studies, but the APA itself overlooked the HHS report's evidence review, which included 12 of those studies. In fact, several of them (e.g., Tordoff, Chen, de Vries) were discussed in detail in the main report. Of the remaining 4 studies, 3 were on adults rather than youth, and 1 was published after the HHS Review came out (though the final version does account for it).
#ReadtheReport
2/ Here is a summary of the allegedly overlooked studies cited by @APApsychiatric and where they appear in the HHS Review. It can easily be found in the Supplement, which was published on Wednesday.
3/ The APA had no response to our analysis of studies like Chen (2023) and Tordoff (2022), or to the umbrella review, which is mentioned throughout the report.
The APA did not engage with, and possibly did not even see, the most critical part of the HHS Review.
🚨With a puberty blocker trial looming in the UK, here is why the HHS Review concludes: "administering [pediatric medical transition] to adolescents, even in a research context, is in tension with well-established ethical norms for human subjects research." 1/5
District court vacates Biden-era rule declaring that “sex” in Section 1557 of the ACA includes “gender identity.”
This rule and its antecedents in the Obama years mandated that healthcare providers offer “gender-affirming care.” 1/
2/ The court disagreed with the Biden HHS that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton Country (2020) requires interpreting Title IX (imported into 1557) to mean that sex = gender identity.
Even if that were true, the court adds, Bostock doesn’t compel gender Rx.
3/ The court finds that the Biden HHS exceeded its authority when interpreting Section 1557 as it did.
Interpreting sex as “gender identity” is a legislative act, and thus something only Congress may do.