by Kurt Miceli
The HHS’s final review left critics empty-handed, underscoring that current medical evidence overwhelmingly backs protecting children from risky, irreversible sex-change treatments.
Perhaps no issue in modern society is more divisive or emotional than whether children should receive sex-change treatments. Yet Nov. 18 could very well be remembered as the day when that debate was largely settled.
That’s the day when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued its final report on the medical evidence regarding child sex-change treatments. HHS released an early version of the report in May, but in the intervening months, it directly asked skeptical physicians and medical associations to scrutinize its conclusions.
Amazingly, none of them could disprove HHS’s conclusion that the medical risks to children far outweigh any potential benefits of sex-change treatments. So-called “gender-affirming” treatments can have lifelong consequences for children’s physical and mental health, including infertility, sterility, sexual dysfunction, metabolic disorders, surgical complications, depression, and more. HHS is therefore right to urge that children be protected from such treatments, instead pursuing therapy for conditions, like depression and autism, that commonly accompany gender confusion.
Rarely will you see a more honest or humble approach to such a tricky medical issue. When HHS released its initial report in May, critics, including some of the most prominent medical groups, condemned the report. HHS could have ignored them, but it didn’t. It asked critics to offer a peer review – a foundational step in determining the accuracy of scientific findings.
Federal officials reached out to groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, and the American Psychiatric Association, inviting them to analyze the report and explain what it got wrong. All three organizations have strongly supported giving children access to invasive and irreversible treatments such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-change surgeries. They also vehemently opposed HHS’ initial report in May, with the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the 409-page document within hours of its release.
Despite the HHS outreach, the Academy and the Endocrine Society refused to submit a peer review. That’s telling: When given the chance to offer evidence in support of child sex-change treatments, they declined. If they had good arguments to back their position, they would have eagerly presented them, and rebutted those of the HHS report.
The American Psychiatric Association, to its credit, did submit a peer review. But it was surprisingly devoid of substance. It noted that the initial report didn’t list its authors, even though blinded peer review is common practice in scientific publishing. The APA also seems to have missed critical parts of the report, claiming that HHS didn’t describe its methodology when in fact it did. All told, the APA couldn’t find any substantive errors in the HHS report. Nor did it criticize the report’s discussion of psychotherapy as an alternative to hormones and surgeries.
Other critics who separately published reviews didn’t identify errors or omissions, either. They broadly claim that HHS is misrepresenting the evidence, but they only point to select studies while ignoring the report’s detailed analyses of these studies, showing their methodological problems. More importantly, the critics ignored the systematic reviews that have led other countries to restrict children’s access to transgender treatments. At the end of the day, none of the critical reviewers disprove or even engage substantively with the central conclusions of the HHS report.
Other peer reviewers agreed with the HHS report. That includes a former president of the Endocrine Society, who called its review method “particularly helpful.” He also said the report “reasonably reflect[s]” the current state of evidence. Yet the medical association he once led refused to supply evidence to the contrary, endorsing child sex changes on effectively baseless grounds.
No doubt, some people will be tempted to reject the HHS report because it was issued under the Trump administration. Yet the report itself wasn’t authored by political appointees or partisan hacks. The list of authors is now publicly known, and it includes highly respected medical doctors and Ph. D.s from MIT, Duke University, Baylor College of Medicine, and the University of South Florida. It also includes a variety of experts from medical associations and academic institutions, including liberals. Together, they earnestly and thoroughly reviewed the science, and their conclusions have now withstood strong scrutiny.
Put simply, the latest HHS report is the most comprehensive and evidence-based review of child sex-change treatments in the world. It lends support to the Trump administration’s efforts to stop child sex changes; it also justifies the 27 states that have limited children’s access to such treatments. Without a doubt, this debate isn’t over, given how politically and emotionally charged it is. But on Nov. 18, it became abundantly clear that the best medical science supports protecting children.
Photo: WASHINGTON DC - APRIL 1:The Health and Human Services seal on a door of the office building in downtown Washington DC on April 1, 2025. On this day the Trump Administration started laying off HHS staffers. (Photo by Robb Hill for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Kurt Miceli
Source: https://amgreatness.com/2025/11/28/a-day-that-will-live-in-infamy-for-child-gender-ideology/
No comments:
Post a Comment