Articles like this are why I decided to subscribe about a month ago. You're making it well worthwhile, and have been for quite some time. Thanks, Lisa.
I'm sorry to say it's unlikely anyone will regard the Florida study as nonpartisan. Mostly that's because nothing gets to be nonpartisan in this country anymore. It's all tribalism, all th…
Articles like this are why I decided to subscribe about a month ago. You're making it well worthwhile, and have been for quite some time. Thanks, Lisa.
I'm sorry to say it's unlikely anyone will regard the Florida study as nonpartisan. Mostly that's because nothing gets to be nonpartisan in this country anymore. It's all tribalism, all the way down.
But also, Quentin Van Meter - their key pediatric expert - is the head of the American College of Pediatricians (ACP). And his political commitments are troubling to anyone who cares about the LGB. It's worth visiting the ACP About page. The organization continues to insist that being gay is hazardous in and of itself, and that children raised by gay parents are at a disadvantage compared to kids of straight parents. These points have both been thoroughly debunked. Leaning on him as an expert made the Florida review instantly appear partisan even if the content of it is completely dispassionate. (I haven't read it carefully, only skimmed it, so I can't offer my informed opinion on whether the review itself is solid or shoddy. Just reading backward from the bibliography, it seems unlikely the review steelmanned the evidence for transition. I'd need to look into the Appendices, because that's where the expert opinions are located, and they're not in the copy of the main report that I downloaded.)
It's also important to note that the Florida review was conducted specifically to address the question of whether Medicaid should cover transition-related medical expenses - a policy that we can assume DeSantis opposes, which again casts some doubt on whether the review was conducted in an open-ended fashion. It's not limited to youth transition care, either, although it does address it separately. Given that the U.S. public is broadly more supportive of adult transition, the review is more likely to be seen as politicized by moderates and liberals insofar as it recommends against public funding for adults too.
To date, the most compelling North American critique of pediatric gender affirmation is the dissection of the AAP position on youth transition by James Cantor, which I *have* read carefully and consider extremely well-founded. I'd expect his contribution to this review to be equally rigorous and fair - but also undermined for a liberal reader who's familiar with the stances taken by ACP and Van Meter regarding gays and lesbians.
There's no easy solution here as the AAP has totally abandoned ship. Plus, any doctor, academic, or journalist who raises even the most reasonable questions about youth transition immediately gets tarred as a bigot and 'phobe - as you know all too well.
(Anyone who hasn't read Cantor's takedown of the AAP position should - it's super-accessible and concise, albeit detail-oriented. It is not peer-reviewed but since what he's doing is mainly showing how the AAP position statement is founded on misrepresentations, it meets my standards for solid scholarship. I'm not a doctor but much of my research is in the social history of medicine. Here's Cantor: http://www.sexologytoday.org/2018/10/american-academy-of-pediatrics-policy.html)
(Edit: While the above-linked version of Cantor's critique of the AAP position is not peer-reviewed, it did go through peer review and was published here - behind a paywall, unfortunately: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1698481 I can't vouch for whether any substantive changes were made.)
Yes, the Florida review isn’t quite in the same class as the UK reviews (or seemingly the Swedish and Finnish reviews). Cantor’s submission for Florida is better than the actual review.
Had to dredge through tons of guilt-by-association smear stories about him - one of the criticisms being from a judge complaining that he hadn’t treated young transgender people, which may be correct but doesn’t mean he isn’t in a position to assess the evidence base. In light of the pressure towards affirmation-only treatment it may wind up difficult to find anyone who has treated young people with GD who is in any way critical of the affirmation track, which I guess is the point.
Yes, your final point is a really important one. I absolutely agree that Cantor is well-placed to evaluate the evidence; he has all the requisite scientific skills, is deeply familiar with the literature, and has worked extensively with transgender adults. I've started to look at Cantor's report for the Florida review and so far it looks very solid, as I'd expect. But it's the length of a master's thesis and I'm trying to deal with some of the chaos in my life, so I may not get through it soon ...
Articles like this are why I decided to subscribe about a month ago. You're making it well worthwhile, and have been for quite some time. Thanks, Lisa.
I'm sorry to say it's unlikely anyone will regard the Florida study as nonpartisan. Mostly that's because nothing gets to be nonpartisan in this country anymore. It's all tribalism, all the way down.
But also, Quentin Van Meter - their key pediatric expert - is the head of the American College of Pediatricians (ACP). And his political commitments are troubling to anyone who cares about the LGB. It's worth visiting the ACP About page. The organization continues to insist that being gay is hazardous in and of itself, and that children raised by gay parents are at a disadvantage compared to kids of straight parents. These points have both been thoroughly debunked. Leaning on him as an expert made the Florida review instantly appear partisan even if the content of it is completely dispassionate. (I haven't read it carefully, only skimmed it, so I can't offer my informed opinion on whether the review itself is solid or shoddy. Just reading backward from the bibliography, it seems unlikely the review steelmanned the evidence for transition. I'd need to look into the Appendices, because that's where the expert opinions are located, and they're not in the copy of the main report that I downloaded.)
It's also important to note that the Florida review was conducted specifically to address the question of whether Medicaid should cover transition-related medical expenses - a policy that we can assume DeSantis opposes, which again casts some doubt on whether the review was conducted in an open-ended fashion. It's not limited to youth transition care, either, although it does address it separately. Given that the U.S. public is broadly more supportive of adult transition, the review is more likely to be seen as politicized by moderates and liberals insofar as it recommends against public funding for adults too.
To date, the most compelling North American critique of pediatric gender affirmation is the dissection of the AAP position on youth transition by James Cantor, which I *have* read carefully and consider extremely well-founded. I'd expect his contribution to this review to be equally rigorous and fair - but also undermined for a liberal reader who's familiar with the stances taken by ACP and Van Meter regarding gays and lesbians.
There's no easy solution here as the AAP has totally abandoned ship. Plus, any doctor, academic, or journalist who raises even the most reasonable questions about youth transition immediately gets tarred as a bigot and 'phobe - as you know all too well.
(Anyone who hasn't read Cantor's takedown of the AAP position should - it's super-accessible and concise, albeit detail-oriented. It is not peer-reviewed but since what he's doing is mainly showing how the AAP position statement is founded on misrepresentations, it meets my standards for solid scholarship. I'm not a doctor but much of my research is in the social history of medicine. Here's Cantor: http://www.sexologytoday.org/2018/10/american-academy-of-pediatrics-policy.html)
(Edit: While the above-linked version of Cantor's critique of the AAP position is not peer-reviewed, it did go through peer review and was published here - behind a paywall, unfortunately: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1698481 I can't vouch for whether any substantive changes were made.)
Yes, the Florida review isn’t quite in the same class as the UK reviews (or seemingly the Swedish and Finnish reviews). Cantor’s submission for Florida is better than the actual review.
Edit to add link to Cantor’s submission:
https://www.ahca.myflorida.com/letkidsbekids/docs/AHCA_GAPMS_June_2022_Attachment_D.pdf
Had to dredge through tons of guilt-by-association smear stories about him - one of the criticisms being from a judge complaining that he hadn’t treated young transgender people, which may be correct but doesn’t mean he isn’t in a position to assess the evidence base. In light of the pressure towards affirmation-only treatment it may wind up difficult to find anyone who has treated young people with GD who is in any way critical of the affirmation track, which I guess is the point.
Yes, your final point is a really important one. I absolutely agree that Cantor is well-placed to evaluate the evidence; he has all the requisite scientific skills, is deeply familiar with the literature, and has worked extensively with transgender adults. I've started to look at Cantor's report for the Florida review and so far it looks very solid, as I'd expect. But it's the length of a master's thesis and I'm trying to deal with some of the chaos in my life, so I may not get through it soon ...