Almost nothing about this pod was scientific. Almost all of it was political, namely taking a political stance against Republican efforts to restrict access to gender-transition treatment, in particular for minors, but in some cases also for adults.
At the end of the podcast, they made a series of non-evidence based claims. And they also did not distinguish between pediatric and adult gender-transition treatment and how the ethical considerations and evidence base differ between them.
They falsely claimed that doctors in this field simply “follow the evidence”; because if they did, those doctors would know that evidence-based medicine experts have widely concluded that for minors in particular, gender-transition treatment is not evidence-based and instead is grounded in weak and uncertain research findings.
Most notably, no research has backed the claim that this treatment lowers suicide deaths. Only one study has sought to determine whether these treatments are life saving for youths and it found that they are not.
@scifri turned off replies when this post was inundated with people saying the pod is not scientific. The pod then falsely claimed they were muting the replies because of hate. I do not see hate in the comments. I see people arguing about science.
🧵👇Debunking podcaster Michael Hobbes is wrong about the American Medical Association’s longstanding position about youth gender surgeries.
Before Feb. 2026, the AMA had never specified that gender surgeries should generally be reserved for adults.
In 2024, the AMA asserted: “Our American Medical Association recognizes that medical and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria and gender incongruence, as determined by shared decision making between the patient and physician, are medically necessary as outlined by generally-accepted standards of medical and surgical practice.”
Hobbes is pointing to this WPATH FAQ without acknowledging (or knowing) that it actually misrepresents what the organization’s trans-care guidelines, The Standards of Care Version 8 (SoC 8) says. WPATH famously removed all age limits (except for phalloplasty) in the SoC 8 when it was published in Sept 2022 under pressure from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Hobbes fails to understand that the original reporter who published the AMA’s statement saying it sided with the ASPS on youth gender surgeries was not Jeremy Peters, it was Andrew Jacobs, who could in no way be considered a part of this supposed “anti-trans braintrust.” Peters was only reiterating what Jacobs originally reported.
And yes, the statement was a shift, otherwise the AMA wouldn’t be trying to walk it back and say they were misquoted. Because the AMA knows that the statement reads as if they did make a shift in policy.
Is the AMA Telling the Truth About Their Expressed Positions on Youth Gender Surgeries?
The American Medical Association to the @StrackHaley at the National Review @NRO on Feb. 3: "[T]he AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood."
The @AmerMedicalAssn today: "We responded" to questions about the American Society of Plastic Surgeon's opposition to pediatric gender-transition surgeries "only after being contacted by media outlets, using the language approved by the board. While some media coverage characterized this as agreement with the ASPS statement, that phrasing did not come from the AMA."
Meghan Wachspress, who accused Illinois congressional candidate Daniel Biss of an "inappropriate relationship" after he, at 26, was her math prof and she, 20, was his student and the 2 dated for a while and made out in '04, wrote on Substack in 2025 that MeToo didn't go far enough.
"In an alternate universe the experiences encompassed by #metoo could have expanded outward to include other kinds of workplace interactions and structural inequalities that minimized or objectified women in the Kantian sense (making them men’s tools), costing women status, money, and time compared to their male colleagues," she wrote. substack.com/home/post/p-16…
@chadfelixg Harvard Law School clinical instructor and trans activist Alejandra Caraballo is unhappy about @BenAppel’s article in @TheAtlantic, calling it the “‘they're transing the gays’ conspiracy theory.”
"The science doesn’t seem so settled after all, and it’s important to understand what happened here. The approach of left-of-center Americans and our institutions — to assume that when a scientific organization releases a 'policy statement' on a hot-button issue, that the policy statement must be accurate — is a deeply naïve understanding of science, human nature and politics, and how they intersect," writes @JesseSingal for @NYTOpinion.
The A.P.A. presents a particularly striking case of why transparency is important. In 2024, it published what it touted as a “groundbreaking policy supporting transgender, gender diverse, nonbinary individuals” that was specifically geared at fighting “misinformation” on that subject. But when I reached out to the group this month, it pointed me to a different document, a letterwritten by the group’s chief advocacy officer, Katherine McGuire, in September in response to a Federal Trade Commission request for comment on youth gender medicine.
The documents, separated by about a year and a half (and, perhaps as significantly, one presidential election), straightforwardly contradict each other. The A.P.A. in 2024 argued that there is a “comprehensive body of psychological and medical research supporting the positive impact of gender-affirming treatments” for individuals “across the life span.” But in 2025, the group argued that “psychologists do not make broad claims about treatment effectiveness.”
In 2024, the A.P.A. criticized those “mischaracterizing gender dysphoria as a manifestation of traumatic stress or neurodivergence.” In 2025, it cautioned that gender dysphoria diagnoses could be the result of “trauma-related presentations” rather than a trans identity, and noted that “co-occurring mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder) … may complicate or be mistaken for gender dysphoria.” It seems undeniable that the 2025 A.P.A. published what the 2024 A.P. A considered to be “misinformation.” (“The 2024 policy statement and the 2025 F.T.C. letter are consistent,” said Ms. McGuire in an email, and “both documents reflect A.P.A.’s consistent commitment to evidence-based psychological care.”)
@nytopinion @jessesingal Jesse Singal on youth gender medicine in @NYTOpinion: “I’ve been covering this controversy for about a decade from a left-of-center perspective, and I’ve found that anyone who questions these treatments, even mildly, is invariably accused of bigotry.”
NEWS: Mt. Sinai, the sprawling hospital system, has joined NYU Langone in shuttering its pediatric gender clinic in the face of threats from the Trump administration of cutting off its Medicaid funding.
NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani @ZohranKMamdani @NYCMayor pledged in his campaign to spend $65M in city funds on gender-transition treatment to evade pressures from the Trump administration to cut off such access. But since NYU announced it would no longer provide gender-transition drugs or surgeries to minors, the mayor has been mum on the potential for spending public funds on these interventions.
The blue-state pediatric gender clinic closures started with Children's Hospital Los Angeles last July and have continued steadily since then. benryan.substack.com/p/dr-johanna-o…