Progressives Question the Basis of Transgender Medical Treatments
A recent report in The Atlantic raises concerns regarding the belief among progressives that American standards for medical treatment are grounded in evidence. This skepticism is fueled by prevalent misinformation surrounding transgender medical treatments for young people, with certain myths suggesting lower suicide rates associated with these interventions.
Helen Lewis, in her article, argues that many political assertions defending the use of adolescent hormone blockers and treatments are akin to “zombie facts.” These are ideas that persist without solid backing, often accepted as truth simply because they are repeated. She notes that many liberals are unaware of this, trapped within media bubbles filled with well-meaning commentators who confidently advocate for gender medicine. Meanwhile, they continue to face backlash from elite supporters who have distanced themselves from the conversation.
One of the anecdotes included by Lewis is from Chase Strangio, an ACLU lawyer who stated at the Supreme Court last year that studies did not demonstrate a meaningful link between hormonal treatments and the well-being of troubled adolescents. This was highlighted in the case, US v. Skrmetti, where the Supreme Court ultimately ruled 6-3 in favor of Tennessee’s law banning such treatments for minors experiencing gender dysphoria.
Strangio’s comments hinted at a troubling trend: the narrative has shifted to suggest that denying access to hormone treatments is akin to endangering children’s lives. However, Lewis points out that data revealed no significant rise in suicide rates in 2020, despite the imposition of restrictions on these treatments.
Still, she observes that advocates for young gender treatments tend to invoke emotional appeals to suicide in their legal arguments. Lewis also critiques the notion that the existing evidence backs adolescent gender transitions, deeming this perception a significant piece of misinformation that many liberals seem to accept.
Media Coverage on the Supreme Court’s Decision
The media has characterized the ruling of the Supreme Court on trans treatments for minors as a major setback for trans rights. In her examination, Lewis mentions the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and its internal hesitations regarding recommendations for gender treatments in youth, suggesting it selectively publishes findings that align with its goals.
Also highlighted was Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a medical director at a youth health center in Los Angeles, who revealed her reluctance to release studies that might not support gender treatments for young people, for fear of them being “weaponized.”
Lewis urges fellow progressives to break free from this “bubble of misinformation,” suggesting that the left often aligns support for youth gender transitions with broader issues like police reform or climate change, which is problematic. It’s essential, she argues, to tackle complex topics individually. We can oppose militarization and advocate for climate action, yet still question the validity of unproven treatments for children.
