Debate Over Pediatric Gender-Affirming Care Intensifies Following New HHS Report

On November 19, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published the study Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices. The report, released through the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, finds that the harms from sex-rejecting procedures — including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations — are significant.

According to the press release, these conclusions support the findings of President Trump’s Make America Healthy Again Commission that unnecessary procedures and long-term health risks, such as infertility, are a result of the overmedicalization of children.

While National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D., stated that the report marks a turning point for American medicine, LGBTQ+ advocacy group The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) called the report a sham and a political document. “This peer response report is similar to the report released in May, which had a predetermined outcome dictated by grossly uninformed political actors that have deliberately mischaracterized healthcare for transgender youth despite the uniform, science-backed conclusion of the American medical and mental health experts to the contrary,” Jared Todd wrote for HRC.

Paige Winfield Cunningham and David Ovalle reported for The Washington Post that “transition care providers and leading medical associations fiercely defend the availability of such care and say the fixation on long-term unknowns overlooks the consequences of a child’s distress as their body develops in a way that does not align with their gender identity.”

“Major medical associations have disputed the notion that the evidence is too poor to justify transition care for children and broadly endorse a range of interventions,” Cunningham and Ovalle wrote. “The American Psychiatric Association concluded it couldn’t assess the report’s rigor because it was not clear how the studies it reviewed were selected or judged.”

“The disclosures in the final report show that at least six of the nine authors have financial interests or have spoken out extensively opposing gender-affirming care,” Mary Kekatos noted for ABC News.  Kekatos added that “systematic reviews from Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. have resulted in the three countries restricting gender-affirming care.”