Great summary. Note that there is one error: that should be 0.1%, not 0.01%. Also, that study was about people with private insurance, not the general population. So it is possible the national figure is different. See: https://benryan.substack.com/p/1-in-1000-privately-insured-17-year
One thing that bothers me is the photo used at the top of the piece. Those images represent gays and lesbians. Granted, the pride flag has been co-opted by the trans movement. But this report and the issues at hand don't have anything to do with same sex attracted people. I resent the forced teaming and the subsequent backlash we as LGBs are experiencing. Would you consider using a different photo that showed the trans flag or something more representative of trans ideology?
This is an important point. It's crucial to separate the T craziness from LGB. There was never any basis to connect them in the first place. This was calculated to benefit from the civil rights issues already won. They are the parasitic barnacles attaching themselves to the LGB ship of state looking for a free ride.
Agreed. The use of phrases like 'the LGBT community" and "LGBTQ activists" (as used in the article) is very irritating to LGBs who want nothing to do with the Ts and who reject the term "queer". Trans activism has done great harm to the cause of LGB rights, and especially to lesbians.
Count me among them. Trans activism also seems to be causing an unknown number of effeminate gay men from troubled backgrounds in marginal situations to believe that they'd be better of having a sex change and living as woman. Talk about victims!
I agree. I think it's going to be especially hard to turn the language ship around. We can call them trans activists and trans community in the effort to undo this forced teaming but people love to lump us together.
"However, the Review points out that a recent study of private insurance data published in Jama Pediatrics found that around 1 in 1000 American 17-year olds in the insurers’ records received a prescription for cross-sex hormones between 2018 and 2022."
The above quote concisely illuminates a social contagion + medical scandal=GAC.
Thanks for this summary! I always look forward to your analysis. Your line about "risks outweigh the benefits" probably meant to say "benefits outweigh the risks".
Does anyone know whether it will be published as a book?
When I first started reading about "gender affirming care" several years ago, I soon ran into the "gender dysphoria" phrase and realized that "gender dysphoria" sounded a heck of a lot like the pathologizing discourses that used to be levied against homosexuality. And soon after, I came to see "gender affirming care" as essentially the gay/lesbian conversion therapy from hell.
It's rich to hear critics complain about lack of evidence given Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy refusal to publish research findings on "gender dysphoric" children, most likely because it doesn't celebrate industry preferred conclusions. And let's not forget how WPATH forced Johns Hopkins to bury the systematic reviews it commissioned from that university. BTW, here is how HRC is covering it on Instagram, first sentence: "Today, the Department of Health & Human Services released a deliberately "false" report," the outcome of which was predetermined by the Trump Administration."
The reception to this report is furious. What else can all these organizations say given what they themselves have been saying again and again?
The focus on ethics is interesting. Universities are now avowedly very, very committed to "research ethics" protocols, there are committees (I am on one, though covering social science not medical research), conferences, professional administrators, and a constant attitude of towering superiority towards the bad old days before ethics protocols were as strict (Tuskegee study, etc.)
It's obviously all a complete, tire-fire level failure. That is what is going to be a RESOUNDING finding in years to come. All of this stuff was done to kids in an era in which a huge and hugely self-congratulatory official ethics apparatus was in place everywhere in North America. It's much, much, much worse than Tuskegee. It's horrendous.
I wonder if this can be true? Though it makes sense of how *many* kids I have encountered sort of everywhere in Canada and the States swept up in this. I have long wanted to know what the real numbers are: maybe it really is this high. damn.
In the final paragraph of the Rooted in Failure section you conflate an earlier single-patient case study (concerning a trans-identifying female known as FG) with the later Dutch Protocol's subjects. FG was followed up again at age 48, when thankfully things had slightly improved. Interestingly, like all but one of those subjects, FG was not heterosexual. It's worth noting that even the researchers responsible for the Dutch Protocol didn't always stick to its strict procedures.
Oops, I forgot to add my thanks for your thoughtful analysis of the HHS Report. Let's hope it leads to the necessary changes in paediatric care for gender-confused children and young people.
And there's no criticism that the Cass review took years, whereas HHS was able to produce the review in a matter of months? And might the Trump administration's repudiation of scientific research and indiscriminate slashing of research budgets undermine the credibility of the report?
There's nothing I would like better than a US government report conclusively proving that pediatric gender medicine not only provides no benefits to the individual but is actually harmful.
For that matter, I would like qualified government experts to demolish the very notion of a trans identity, showing instead that people who claim to identify as trans are poseurs, mentally ill, victims of parental manipulation or peer-group social contagion, autogynephiles whose paraphilia got out of hand and/or effeminate gay men who are so screwed up by their oppressive upbringing and social environment that they decide they'd be better off transitioning.
I'm just concerned that sex realists may not have that many chances to deal a crippling blow to the trans movement and that the Trump administration's propensity for screwups and for consorting with crazies may not produce the results gender critical activists were hoping for.
The scope of the HHS Review and the Cass Review were different. The Cass Review was an independent inquiry into the National Health Service which commissioned new systematic reviews and conducted extensive consultations with doctors and patients. The HHS Review was simply a review of the existing literature, which knowledgeable experts could do in 90 days.
I share your concerns, Ollie. Though I despise Trump with every fiber of my being, I'm grateful for this HHS report. But I know that the mere fact that it came out under this administration means that many (probably most) of my political confrères will dismiss it out of hand.
This is a huge obstacle for us in fighting this dangerous ideology. And there are already so many obstacles! I'm afraid that the Trump EO and this report will only cause the cultists and the captured to dig in their heels even deeper.
One of the risks of self-publidhing. I have corrected it
Great summary. Note that there is one error: that should be 0.1%, not 0.01%. Also, that study was about people with private insurance, not the general population. So it is possible the national figure is different. See: https://benryan.substack.com/p/1-in-1000-privately-insured-17-year
Thank you for pointing that out. I have made a correction.
Good review and analysis!
One thing that bothers me is the photo used at the top of the piece. Those images represent gays and lesbians. Granted, the pride flag has been co-opted by the trans movement. But this report and the issues at hand don't have anything to do with same sex attracted people. I resent the forced teaming and the subsequent backlash we as LGBs are experiencing. Would you consider using a different photo that showed the trans flag or something more representative of trans ideology?
This is an important point. It's crucial to separate the T craziness from LGB. There was never any basis to connect them in the first place. This was calculated to benefit from the civil rights issues already won. They are the parasitic barnacles attaching themselves to the LGB ship of state looking for a free ride.
Agreed. The use of phrases like 'the LGBT community" and "LGBTQ activists" (as used in the article) is very irritating to LGBs who want nothing to do with the Ts and who reject the term "queer". Trans activism has done great harm to the cause of LGB rights, and especially to lesbians.
Count me among them. Trans activism also seems to be causing an unknown number of effeminate gay men from troubled backgrounds in marginal situations to believe that they'd be better of having a sex change and living as woman. Talk about victims!
I agree. I think it's going to be especially hard to turn the language ship around. We can call them trans activists and trans community in the effort to undo this forced teaming but people love to lump us together.
Excellent review!
"However, the Review points out that a recent study of private insurance data published in Jama Pediatrics found that around 1 in 1000 American 17-year olds in the insurers’ records received a prescription for cross-sex hormones between 2018 and 2022."
The above quote concisely illuminates a social contagion + medical scandal=GAC.
Wait... what? Really? could this be true? Holy effing poop.
Thanks for this summary! I always look forward to your analysis. Your line about "risks outweigh the benefits" probably meant to say "benefits outweigh the risks".
I’ve followed this topic very closely for several years and read everything I can find. This is an excellent overview of the report. Thank you.
Does anyone know whether it will be published as a book?
When I first started reading about "gender affirming care" several years ago, I soon ran into the "gender dysphoria" phrase and realized that "gender dysphoria" sounded a heck of a lot like the pathologizing discourses that used to be levied against homosexuality. And soon after, I came to see "gender affirming care" as essentially the gay/lesbian conversion therapy from hell.
It's rich to hear critics complain about lack of evidence given Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy refusal to publish research findings on "gender dysphoric" children, most likely because it doesn't celebrate industry preferred conclusions. And let's not forget how WPATH forced Johns Hopkins to bury the systematic reviews it commissioned from that university. BTW, here is how HRC is covering it on Instagram, first sentence: "Today, the Department of Health & Human Services released a deliberately "false" report," the outcome of which was predetermined by the Trump Administration."
The reception to this report is furious. What else can all these organizations say given what they themselves have been saying again and again?
Excellent, thanks for publishing this.
Thanks for this very informative piece.
The focus on ethics is interesting. Universities are now avowedly very, very committed to "research ethics" protocols, there are committees (I am on one, though covering social science not medical research), conferences, professional administrators, and a constant attitude of towering superiority towards the bad old days before ethics protocols were as strict (Tuskegee study, etc.)
It's obviously all a complete, tire-fire level failure. That is what is going to be a RESOUNDING finding in years to come. All of this stuff was done to kids in an era in which a huge and hugely self-congratulatory official ethics apparatus was in place everywhere in North America. It's much, much, much worse than Tuskegee. It's horrendous.
One in a 1000? OMG. That means thousands of kids on cross sex hormones in the US alone.And tens of thousands on puberty blockers.
I wonder if this can be true? Though it makes sense of how *many* kids I have encountered sort of everywhere in Canada and the States swept up in this. I have long wanted to know what the real numbers are: maybe it really is this high. damn.
Fantastic précis of the report and a helpful comparison with Cass.
Great summary, with clear-eyed, objective language—much appreciated!
In the final paragraph of the Rooted in Failure section you conflate an earlier single-patient case study (concerning a trans-identifying female known as FG) with the later Dutch Protocol's subjects. FG was followed up again at age 48, when thankfully things had slightly improved. Interestingly, like all but one of those subjects, FG was not heterosexual. It's worth noting that even the researchers responsible for the Dutch Protocol didn't always stick to its strict procedures.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238
Oops, I forgot to add my thanks for your thoughtful analysis of the HHS Report. Let's hope it leads to the necessary changes in paediatric care for gender-confused children and young people.
Great summary, thanks!
And there's no criticism that the Cass review took years, whereas HHS was able to produce the review in a matter of months? And might the Trump administration's repudiation of scientific research and indiscriminate slashing of research budgets undermine the credibility of the report?
There's nothing I would like better than a US government report conclusively proving that pediatric gender medicine not only provides no benefits to the individual but is actually harmful.
For that matter, I would like qualified government experts to demolish the very notion of a trans identity, showing instead that people who claim to identify as trans are poseurs, mentally ill, victims of parental manipulation or peer-group social contagion, autogynephiles whose paraphilia got out of hand and/or effeminate gay men who are so screwed up by their oppressive upbringing and social environment that they decide they'd be better off transitioning.
I'm just concerned that sex realists may not have that many chances to deal a crippling blow to the trans movement and that the Trump administration's propensity for screwups and for consorting with crazies may not produce the results gender critical activists were hoping for.
The scope of the HHS Review and the Cass Review were different. The Cass Review was an independent inquiry into the National Health Service which commissioned new systematic reviews and conducted extensive consultations with doctors and patients. The HHS Review was simply a review of the existing literature, which knowledgeable experts could do in 90 days.
Thank you for the clarification!
I share your concerns, Ollie. Though I despise Trump with every fiber of my being, I'm grateful for this HHS report. But I know that the mere fact that it came out under this administration means that many (probably most) of my political confrères will dismiss it out of hand.
This is a huge obstacle for us in fighting this dangerous ideology. And there are already so many obstacles! I'm afraid that the Trump EO and this report will only cause the cultists and the captured to dig in their heels even deeper.
Hope you read it!
Crucial to challenhe the ideology and deprogra.me deluded parents, psychiatrists. Ken Zucker is a good example of going back to reality.