Scientific Misinformation Is Criminalizing the Standard of Care for Transgender Youth

Lepore, Christina; Alstott, Anne; McNamara, Meredithe

doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.2959

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a survey-based study, 273 parents and caregivers of TGD youth from 43 US states expressed fear that the proposed antitransgender legislation will lead to worsening mental health and increased suicidal risk for their children [ 51 ]. Only a few studies have examined the impact of legislation aiming to ban GAMC [ 30 , 31 , 51 , 52 ]. TGD youth have lower quality of life than cisgender youth and we speculate that these legislative bans may further worsen their quality of life [ 53 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Impact of Legislation Aiming to Ban Gender-Affirming Care on Pediatric Endocrine Providers: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

Gupta,

Barrera,

Boskey

et al. 2023

Journal of the Endocrine Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Access to gender-affirming medical care is associated with better mental health outcomes in transgender and gender diverse youth. In 2021 and 2022, legislation aiming to ban gender-affirming medical care for youth was proposed in 24 states. Objective This study aimed to (1) assess the impact of this legislation on pediatric providers based on legislative status of their state of practice and (2) identify the themes of concerns reported by them. Methods A mixed-methods study was conducted via an anonymous survey distributed to pediatric endocrinology providers. Survey responses were stratified based on US state of practice, with attention to whether legislation aiming to ban gender-affirming care had been considered. Data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Results Of 223 respondents, 125 (56.0%) were currently providing gender-affirming medical care. A total of 103 (45.7%) respondents practiced in a state where legislation aiming to ban gender-affirming care had been proposed and/or passed between January 2021 to June 2022. Practicing in legislation-affected states was associated with negative experiences for providers including (1) institutional pressure that would limit the ability to provide care, (2) threats to personal safety, (3) concerns about legal action being taken against them, (4) concerns about their career, and (5) institutional concerns about engagement with media. Major qualitative themes emerging for providers in legislation-affected states included safety concerns and the impact of laws on medical practice. Conclusion This study suggests that legislation aiming to ban health care for transgender youth may decrease access to qualified providers in affected states.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Impact of Legislation Aiming to Ban Gender-Affirming Care on Pediatric Endocrine Providers: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

Gupta,

Barrera,

Boskey

et al. 2023

Journal of the Endocrine Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Florida's “Don't Say Gay” bill banned classroom instruction on SOGI topics (Parental Rights in Education, 2022). Yet, most bills have targeted transgender youth, including banning access to medically necessary and evidence‐based care endorsed by major medical associations (American Psychological Association, 2020; Korioth, 2021; Madara, 2021) and fueled by scientific misinformation (Lepore et al, 2022). Similar anti‐LGBTQ+ legislation has also been introduced globally, including in the United Kingdom, Poland, Hungary, Singapore, and Afghanistan.…”

Section: The History Of Lgbtq+ Exclusion and Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing language, changes lives: Learning the lexicon of LGBTQ+ health equity

Soled

Clark

Altman

et al. 2022

Research in Nursing & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…They point to the potential distress associated with the development of secondary sex characteristics that are incongruent with gender identity and the high rates of self-harm and suicidal ideation reported among children with gender dysphoria (de Snoo-Trimp et al, 2022 ; de Vries et al, 2021 ; Giordano, 2008 ; Kreukels & Cohen-Kettenis, 2011 ; Rafferty et al, 2018 ). Additionally, they believe the quality of the evidence supporting puberty blockers has been misrepresented (Lepore et al, 2022 ; McNamara et al, 2022 , 2023 ), and maintain that respect for the child’s autonomy should generally override concerns about decision-making competence (Ashley, 2022 , 2023 ; Priest, 2019 ). On the other hand, there is growing recognition that the evidence supporting puberty blockers is very low quality and at high risk of bias, long-term harms and benefits are uncertain (Block, 2023a ; Cass, 2022 ; COHERE, 2020 ; Ludvigsson et al, 2023 ; NICE, 2020 ; Socialstyrelsen, 2022 ), and the goals of treatment are unclear (Levine & Abbruzzese, 2023 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Puberty Suppression for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria and the Child’s Right to an Open Future

Jorgensen,

Athéa,

Masson

2024

Arch Sex Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this essay, we consider the clinical and ethical implications of puberty blockers for pediatric gender dysphoria through the lens of “the child’s right to an open future,” which refers to rights that children do not have the capacity to exercise as minors, but that must be protected, so they can exercise them in the future as autonomous adults. We contrast the open future principle with the beliefs underpinning the gender affirming care model and discuss implications for consent. We evaluate claims that puberty blockers are reversible, discuss the scientific uncertainty about long-term benefits and harms, summarize international developments, and examine how suicide has been used to frame puberty suppression as a medically necessary, lifesaving treatment. In discussing these issues, we include relevant empirical evidence and raise questions for clinicians and researchers. We conclude that treatment pathways that delay decisions about medical transition until the child has had the chance to grow and mature into an autonomous adulthood would be most consistent with the open future principle.

show abstract

Scientific Misinformation Is Criminalizing the Standard of Care for Transgender Youth

Abstract: This Viewpoint challenges new laws that criminalize gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary youth in the US.

Cited by 18 publications

References 7 publications

Exploring the Impact of Legislation Aiming to Ban Gender-Affirming Care on Pediatric Endocrine Providers: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

Exploring the Impact of Legislation Aiming to Ban Gender-Affirming Care on Pediatric Endocrine Providers: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

Changing language, changes lives: Learning the lexicon of LGBTQ+ health equity

Puberty Suppression for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria and the Child’s Right to an Open Future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About