A Deep Dive into the Disinformation Campaign Targeting Transgender Healthcare
The past year has witnessed a surge in anti-transgender legislation across the United States, with over 500 bills proposed or enacted. Fueling this legislative push is a wave of misinformation targeting the efficacy and safety of gender-affirming care. This misinformation campaign, often disguised as scientific skepticism, is largely orchestrated by right-wing think tanks and amplified by media outlets that uncritically platform their claims. This article delves into the tactics, organizations, and individuals behind this campaign, revealing a coordinated effort to undermine access to vital healthcare for transgender individuals.
Central to this disinformation campaign is the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM), designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. SEGM presents itself as a concerned group of clinicians and researchers, but its actions reveal a different agenda. The group actively participates in anti-trans legislative efforts, inserting their narratives into reputable platforms like Medscape and providing testimony in support of banning gender-affirming care for both youth and adults. A Yale School of Medicine report exposed SEGM’s dubious scholarship, revealing that their cited evidence is frequently low-quality, including unverified letters to the editor, opinion pieces, and misrepresented studies. SEGM strategically omits research supporting gender-affirming care and ignores established standards of care from mainstream scientific organizations.
SEGM’s influence extends beyond their website and publications. Patrick Hunter, a Florida Board of Medicine member and SEGM affiliate, played a key role in a hearing on new standards of care for transgender youth. The documents submitted for consideration at this hearing included SEGM blog posts and literature reviews, further demonstrating their reach into policy decisions. Court documents reveal Hunter’s close ties to Riittakerttu Kaltiala, a Finnish doctor known for lobbying against transgender healthcare, and Julia Mason, a SEGM founder. This network underscores the interconnectedness of individuals and organizations driving the anti-trans narrative.
SEGM’s influence is further amplified through its connections to other organizations promoting unscientific arguments against gender-affirming care. These groups, including Genspect, Gender Identity Challenge, and Rethink Identity Medicine Ethics, share board members and collaborate to disseminate misinformation. SEGM’s tactics extend to financially incentivizing researchers to publish articles critical of informed consent transition care, further corrupting the scientific process. One such researcher, Stephen Levine, has misrepresented studies on transgender youth and disturbingly compared transitions to Nazi experiments.
The misinformation campaign often exploits the case of Keira Bell, a cisgender woman who regretted her transition and successfully challenged the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in the UK. Bell’s case, which mandated court approval for puberty blockers for minors, became a rallying cry for anti-trans activists despite being later overturned. The ruling misrepresented scientific evidence and established a transphobic double standard, prioritizing Bell’s regret over the distress experienced by transgender adolescents navigating puberty.
A recurring argument employed by anti-trans advocates is the alleged "low quality" of evidence supporting gender-affirming care. This argument, echoed by the controversial Cass Review in the UK and various state policy statements, often calls for ceasing current treatments and replacing them with "extended psychotherapy." However, "low quality" is a technical term referring to the level of certainty in research findings, not the accuracy of the evidence itself. It is unethical to withhold existing treatments based on this technicality, particularly when doing so causes harm. Furthermore, "low quality" evidence is common in many medical fields and does not preclude strong recommendations for treatment. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), the gold standard of research, are often impractical and unethical in trans healthcare due to the nature of the interventions and the vulnerability of the population.
The push for stricter research standards specifically for transgender healthcare while ignoring similar limitations in other medical fields reveals a clear double standard. Anti-trans advocates frequently cite hypothetical harms of puberty blockers and hormones, relying on anecdotes and biased studies while dismissing decades of clinical experience and observational data supporting their efficacy. Simultaneously, they fail to provide robust evidence for their preferred alternative, "extended psychotherapy," which resembles conversion therapy and has been shown to be harmful. The increased scrutiny applied to transgender healthcare, coupled with the amplification of detransition narratives, creates a chilling effect, limiting access to care for vulnerable youth.
The changing demographics of transgender youth seeking care, specifically the rise in assigned female at birth (AFAB) adolescents, has also been weaponized by anti-trans activists. They claim this represents a "new" form of gender dysphoria potentially caused by social contagion and untreatable by existing protocols. This argument ignores historical biases in referral patterns and the impact of increased social acceptance on help-seeking behavior. It also disregards research indicating stability in the psychological profiles of transgender youth despite the increase in referrals. Attributing the rise in mental health comorbidities among AFAB adolescents seeking care to social media use and other societal factors is a more plausible explanation than the postulation of a novel and untreatable form of gender dysphoria. Denying care based on such unfounded claims is unethical and harmful. The anti-trans movement’s relentless focus on "low-quality" evidence, while simultaneously promoting unsubstantiated claims and opposing research supporting gender-affirming care, reveals a clear agenda: to restrict access to transition at any age. Their purported concern for the well-being of transgender youth is a façade, masking a deeper ideological opposition to transgender identities and the right to self-determination.
