“When I asked a representative for the APA why they hadn’t engaged, he told me they saw youth gender medicine not as a scientific issue, but one of human rights.” This is a stunning statement. We have a major medical authority is refusing to engage scientifically on a medical treatment approach, and claiming that the human rights framing is the appropriate one to inform their medical decisions. They are, of course, engaging selectively with the studies that purport to show benefits and not costs. So they are hiding behind the veneer of science in that case. They are also putting forth a position that access to their preferred treatment plan is a human right, as if this were settled consensus, which it is not. And even more egregious, this ignores the fact that we need more complete scientific information, non-suppressed evidence, rigorous evaluation of the existing information-in other words, “science”, to inform their human rights debate.
Great article, Lisa! I wondered about the Kristina Olson study. Anyone without bias (i.e. with a bias towards child safety, IMO) do an evaluation of it? FWIW, I found an article online about a study, also NIH affiliated, that claimed something similarly positive about trans youth. When you looked at their data, the sample they used was half what they started out with (some dropped out, refused to answer?) yet they made claims of positive outcomes anyway. How bogus is that? Will try to find it again and post a link. In the meantime, thank you for all you do for the kids! 👍🏻❤️☺️
“When I asked a representative for the APA why they hadn’t engaged, he told me they saw youth gender medicine not as a scientific issue, but one of human rights.” This is a stunning statement. We have a major medical authority is refusing to engage scientifically on a medical treatment approach, and claiming that the human rights framing is the appropriate one to inform their medical decisions. They are, of course, engaging selectively with the studies that purport to show benefits and not costs. So they are hiding behind the veneer of science in that case. They are also putting forth a position that access to their preferred treatment plan is a human right, as if this were settled consensus, which it is not. And even more egregious, this ignores the fact that we need more complete scientific information, non-suppressed evidence, rigorous evaluation of the existing information-in other words, “science”, to inform their human rights debate.
I wonder where they got the idea that science and human rights were not compatible? I wonder how many of these types have dollar signs in their eyes?
This is excellent, and your bottom line point is pitch perfect.
Lisa, which media outlets received this pitch?
Thanks for sharing your receipts.
Great article, Lisa! I wondered about the Kristina Olson study. Anyone without bias (i.e. with a bias towards child safety, IMO) do an evaluation of it? FWIW, I found an article online about a study, also NIH affiliated, that claimed something similarly positive about trans youth. When you looked at their data, the sample they used was half what they started out with (some dropped out, refused to answer?) yet they made claims of positive outcomes anyway. How bogus is that? Will try to find it again and post a link. In the meantime, thank you for all you do for the kids! 👍🏻❤️☺️