The Washington Post argued in a new editorial that the benefits of gender-transition treatments for minors like puberty blockers have not been scientifically proven.
“Treatment results that look impressive in small groups often vanish when larger groups are studied,” The Washington Post editorial board wrote in a piece Sunday headlined, “Look to science, not law, for real answers on youth gender medicine.”
The Post was responding to arguments in front of the Supreme Court over Tennessee’s puberty blocker ban in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case. Experts believe the Supreme Court’s decision in the case could set a precedent that will shape laws about transgender treatments for children across the country.
“That’s why the Food and Drug Administration generally requires large, randomized controlled trials of drugs: to ensure that encouraging initial results aren’t mere statistical noise,” The Post wrote.
“The court’s decision will be consequential in the 24 states with these restrictions, but it won’t resolve the crux of the debate over pediatric gender medicine: whether, as the plaintiffs argued, the treatments can be lifesaving or, as some global health authorities have determined, the evidence is too thin to conclude that they are beneficial and the risks are not well-understood,” the editorial board argued.
It recounted a story this year about a California doctor who admitted to not publicizing a study that found puberty blockers didn’t lead to mental health improvements, for fear of the findings being “weaponized” by transgender health care critics.
“Medical progress is impossible unless null or negative results are published as promptly as positive ones,” the board wrote. “The failure to adequately assess these treatments gives Tennessee reason to worry about them — and legal room to restrict them. We have serious reservations when states make decisions about minors’ medical care, rather than leaving them to parents. But in the absence of clear data — and with the possibility of significant publication bias or researchers massaging their results — parents might not have adequate information.”
The Post also pointed to debate over puberty blockers in Europe, with “[m]ultiple European health authorities” reviewing scientific evidence for puberty blocker use in minors and “conclud[ing] that it was ‘very low certainty,’ ‘lacking’ and ‘limited by methodological weaknesses.’ Last week, Britain banned the use of puberty blockers indefinitely due to safety concerns.”
“No matter how the court rules, though, the federal government should supply the missing evidence at the heart of this dispute,” The Post wrote. “Randomized trials would be best, though harder to pull off now, since children who are placed in a control group might drop out and seek blockers and hormones elsewhere. Congress should nevertheless fund new research of maximum possible rigor, overseen by scientists who are not gender medicine practitioners. Those studies should set timetables and specify the outcomes to be studied in advance to avoid the risk that researchers will pick and choose what to show the public. Children with gender dysphoria deserve clearer answers.”
U.S. v. Skrmetti centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for minors in the state. The law, passed in March 2023, also takes aim at health care providers in Tennessee who continue to provide gender-transition treatments to transgender minors, opening them up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.
Fox News’ Breanne Deppisch and Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.
epicinfinite.com
