The hottest Youth Medicine Substack posts right now

Some prominent doctors publicly condemn critics of trans healthcare and present themselves as morally superior, sometimes making strong claims without clearly showing how those claims cause real harm.
A widely-cited 2023 study often pointed to in favor of youth gender medicine has major methodological problems—missing data, outcome switching, and small or inconsistent effects—so it does not provide strong causal evidence, and broader reviews find the evidence base weak.
When high-status clinicians endorse or rely on weak research, it raises legitimate concerns about their ability to appraise evidence and about patient care, because patients may get recommendations that aren’t well supported.

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.

Yale's Integrity Project has been criticized for spreading misinformation about youth gender medicine and the Cass Review. Many argue that their claims are not based on solid evidence.
Critics of the Integrity Project highlight that their arguments often lack proper context or are misleading. They suggest that the project's authors are prioritizing a legal narrative over accurate scientific discourse.
The debate around gender medicine for youth is complicated and filled with differing opinions. It's important to critically evaluate sources and claims to understand the real effects of treatments like puberty blockers.

The HHS report on youth gender medicine raises skepticism due to its ties to past administrations, but it actually offers a well-done summary of the current evidence, which is lacking in support for youth gender treatments.
Critics of the HHS report, like the American Academy of Pediatrics, have responded quickly and forcefully but often without providing clear evidence or details to back up their claims.
The conversation around youth gender medicine is complicated, and the rushing to judgment by authorities has damaged their credibility, making it harder for families to find trustworthy guidance.

Youth gender medicine researchers may be hiding unfavorable data from the public.
Transparency in scientific research is crucial to ensure accurate findings and allow external critics to question results.
Obtaining information through public records like Freedom of Information Act requests can be crucial to uncovering potential red flags in research.

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