Washington Post Argues Benefits of Gender-Transition Treatments for Minors Not Proven
The Washington Post editorial board argued in a new piece that the benefits of gender-transition treatments, including puberty blockers, for minors have not been scientifically proven. The editorial responds to arguments made in front of the Supreme Court regarding Tennessee’s puberty blocker ban in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case.
The Post argued that encouraging initial results are often due to “statistical noise” and that larger, randomized controlled trials are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of treatments. The editorial board pointed out that the Food and Drug Administration requires such trials for drugs to ensure their safety and efficacy.
The board recounted a story about a California doctor who did not publish a study that found puberty blockers did not improve mental health outcomes, due to fear of the findings being “weaponized” by critics. The editorial argued that medical progress requires the publication of null or negative results, and that the failure to do so raises concerns about the risks of these treatments.
The Post also referenced debate over puberty blockers in Europe, where multiple health authorities have reviewed the scientific evidence and concluded that it is of low certainty and limited by methodological weaknesses. In response to this, the editorial board called for the federal government to fund new research of maximum possible rigor, overseen by scientists who are not gender medicine practitioners.
The U.S. v. Skrmetti case centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for minors and takes aim at healthcare providers who continue to provide these treatments, opening them up to fines, lawsuits, and other liability. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case could set a precedent that shapes laws about transgender treatments for children across the country.