Progressives Misled on Transgender Youth Treatments, The Atlantic Report Claims
A scathing report published in The Atlantic accuses progressives of being susceptible to misinformation regarding medical treatments for transgender youth. Author Helen Lewis argues that many progressives have accepted "zombie facts," or debunked claims that continue to circulate as truth, about the purported benefits of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors experiencing gender dysphoria. Lewis contends that this misinformation persists within progressive media bubbles, where commentators often make unsubstantiated assertions about the efficacy and necessity of these treatments. She stresses that supporting civil rights for transgender individuals does not necessitate endorsing unproven medical interventions or echoing emotionally manipulative and discredited claims, particularly regarding suicide prevention.
Lewis cites several key examples to support her argument. She references ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio’s admission before the Supreme Court that studies have not demonstrated a link between puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and reduced suicide rates among transgender youth. This concession, Lewis points out, undermines the frequent assertion that restricting access to these treatments equates to endangering the lives of transgender minors. She further highlights a 2024 study from England that found no increase in suicides following restrictions on puberty blockers in 2020, contradicting claims that such restrictions would lead to a surge in suicide attempts. Despite these findings, proponents of youth gender treatments continue to invoke suicide as a justification for their stance, a tactic Lewis criticizes as emotionally manipulative.
The report also challenges the notion that youth gender transition is based on robust scientific evidence, calling this claim "perhaps the greatest piece of misinformation believed by liberals." Lewis criticizes the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), alleging that internal documents reveal doubts within the organization about recommending youth gender treatments and a bias towards publishing only supportive research. Similarly, she cites Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, medical director of The Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Los Angeles Children’s Hospital, who reportedly expressed reluctance to publish research that did not promote youth gender treatments out of fear of it being "weaponized."
Lewis urges fellow progressives to critically examine the information they consume and to avoid accepting bundled sets of opinions without considering the nuances of each issue. She argues that support for youth transition has become intertwined with other progressive causes, creating a package deal of "correct" opinions. This, she contends, prevents nuanced discussion and critical analysis of complicated issues like youth gender transition. Lewis maintains that it’s possible to support other progressive causes, such as police reform and climate action, while remaining skeptical of experimental medical treatments for children.
The report highlights the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti, which upheld a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors with gender dysphoria. This ruling, according to Lewis, further underscores the lack of consensus on the safety and efficacy of these treatments. She criticizes the movement for promoting the false narrative that restricting access to these interventions is tantamount to condemning transgender youth to death. This narrative, she argues, is not only inaccurate but also irresponsible, as it creates undue fear and pressure on both transgender youth and their families.
Lewis concludes her piece with a call for greater intellectual honesty and critical thinking within the progressive movement. She emphasizes the importance of separating complex issues and evaluating them individually, rather than blindly accepting pre-packaged sets of "correct" opinions. She argues that challenging the prevailing narrative on youth gender transition is not transphobic but rather a necessary step towards ensuring that medical decisions are based on sound science and ethical considerations. She encourages progressives to resist the urge to silence dissenting voices and to engage in open and honest dialogue about the potential risks and benefits of medical interventions for transgender youth. She stresses the need for a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to this complex issue, one that prioritizes the well-being and long-term health outcomes of transgender children and adolescents.
This extended version provides a more detailed summary of the article, incorporating more specific examples and quotes from Lewis’s piece. It also includes a comprehensive discussion of the key points raised in the report, offering a more nuanced and in-depth analysis of the arguments presented. This expanded summary provides a more thorough understanding of the article’s content and its implications for the ongoing debate surrounding transgender youth healthcare.