The hottest Transgender Care Substack posts right now

A first-of-its-kind medical malpractice verdict was handed down in New York over gender-related surgery performed on a minor.
A teenager underwent a mastectomy during her transition and later sued her psychologist and surgeon, claiming she was left permanently disfigured.
The ruling could change how doctors and mental-health professionals evaluate and obtain consent for irreversible gender-related treatments for minors.

Paul McHugh has long warned that hormones and surgeries for gender dysphoria are experimental and often don’t improve mental health.
As head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins in 1979 he stopped sex-change surgeries after follow-up studies showed poor mental-health outcomes.
At 94 he feels vindicated as recent legal cases and a malpractice win by a detransitioner are starting to challenge current gender-affirming care.

Clinicians admit they often lack solid evidence but still perform life-changing gender treatments on vulnerable young people. They describe this uncertainty openly among themselves.
At closed professional meetings, gender doctors speak much more candidly than they do in public, discussing new and experimental procedures for patients, including adolescents.
Some providers are willing to carry out extreme surgeries—like removing erogenous tissue—on patients who say they are asexual or don’t want sexual sensation, raising ethical concerns about consent and long-term outcomes.

ScienceVs has both criticized and supported gender affirming care for children with gender dysphoria. They seem to have a bias in how they present the evidence surrounding this care.
A recent study found that many teens who initially identified as trans ended up identifying as cis later. This suggests that some may not need medical intervention.
The effects of hormone treatments can lead to serious and permanent health issues. Critics argue that children should not be put on these treatments if there’s a chance they might change their identity later.

The study on gender-affirming medical care suggests that puberty blockers didn't improve or harm the mental health of the youth involved, indicating they were stable throughout the study.
There were concerns about the study's methodology, including why certain outcomes weren’t reported and a significant drop in participants over the study period, which raises questions about the validity of the results.
Researchers have changed their claims about the purpose and effectiveness of puberty blockers, leading to confusion about their intended use and the outcomes they produce.

Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

Puberty blockers for gender dysphoric youth have controversial side effects and their effects on giving time to think are disputed.
Scientific American's article lacks thorough research, oversimplifies key information, and makes misleading claims.
Claims linking gender-affirming care to decreased suicide rates are based on flawed studies and should be approached with skepticism.