NYT Offers a Real Conversation about Transgender Medical Treatments

Andrew Sullivan points out that the NYT has finally decided to have a mature reasoned discussion about transgender medical treatments. Hopefully, reasoned discussion involving pro’s and con’s and real evidence will be the new narrative on this topic, now that Abigail Shrier has been treated like a piñata for two years for the crime of doing what the NYT is finally now doing.

 

Screen Shot 2022 01 13 at 12.42.40 PM

An excerpt from this NYT article:

The new standards state that clinicians should facilitate an “open exploration” of gender with adolescents and their families, without pushing them in one direction or another. But the guidelines recommend restricting the use of medications and surgeries, partly because of their medical risks.

Puberty blockers, for example, can impede bone development, though evidence so far suggests it resumes once puberty is initiated. And if taken in the early phase of puberty, blockers and hormones lead to fertility loss. Patients and their families should be counseled about these risks, the standards say, and if preserving fertility is a priority, drugs should be delayed until a more advanced stage of puberty.

Screen Shot 2022 01 13 at 5.00.52 PM

[Added Jan 14]

Andrew Sullivan:

“Here’s the truth that the NYT was finally forced to acknowledge: “Clinicians are divided” over the role of mental health counseling before making irreversible changes to a child’s body. Among those who are urging more counseling and caution for kids are ground-breaking transgender surgeons. This very public divide was first aired by Abigail Shrier a few months ago on Bari’s Substack, of course, where a trans pioneer in sex-change surgery opined: “It is my considered opinion that due to some of the … I’ll call it just ‘sloppy,’ sloppy healthcare work, that we’re going to have more young adults who will regret having gone through this process.” Oof.

The NYT piece also concedes another key fact: that puberty blockers are neither harmless nor totally reversible . . .

I would think that, just as a general rule, minors making permanent, life-changing decisions should receive more psychological treatment than adults. How on earth is this not the default? In what other field of medicine do patients diagnose themselves, and that alone is justification for dramatic, irreversible medication?”

Share

Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.

This Post Has 2 Comments

  1. Avatar of Bill Heath
    Bill Heath

    Sanity from the Post. I’m hoping it lasts.

  2. Avatar of johnE
    johnE

    Here’s an interesting story you might be interested in. The Lancet, a major UK medical journal, is now officially Woke. The article is a bit old, but still stunning. The scary bit is that even serious empiricists can be buffaloed.

    Lancet story: https://bit.ly/323vlMr

Leave a Reply