Commentary on Levine et al.: A Tale of Two Informed Consent Processes

Do we want to know?

The weak evidence base and profound consequences of gender-affirming interventions for youth call for a particularly sensitive and complex psychoanalytic exploration. However, prohibitions on knowing at the individual and social levels significantly constrain psychoanalytic work with trans-identified youth. Barriers to exploration and thinking that patients bring to treatment are reinforced and reified by the dominant socio-political trends that saturate the contexts in which young people dwell. These trends increasingly frame any attempt to deeply explore why a young person is seeking medical or surgical gender-affirming interventions as "off-limits" and a form of conversion therapy. Furthermore, politically driven clinicians who promote medical gender-affirming interventions misrepresent and attempt to discredit clinicians who explore the meaning and function of trans identification, or who express concern that transitioning may be a drastic solution to various forms of psychic pain. In doing so, they minimise the significance of the weak evidence base for these interventions and their serious, known risks. At the same time, they obscure or deny the psychic pain that is sometimes humming beneath the experience of gender dysphoria. The author asks: If there are significant uncertainties and risks of harm associated with medical interventions for young people, do we want to know?

Implications of the Cass Review for health policy governing gender medicine for Australian minors

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the key recommendations of England's independent inquiry into gender identity services for children and young people (the Cass Review) and to evaluate their relevance to Australian health policy.

CONCLUSIONS

The Cass Review's findings and recommendations have clear applicability to Australian health policy. As a matter of priority, Australian health authorities need to seriously engage with the Cass Review's findings and recommendations. To not do so will put the health and well-being of vulnerable children and young people at risk.

Developmental Pathway Choices of Young People Presenting to a Gender Service with Gender Distress: A Prospective Follow-Up Study

This prospective case-cohort study examines the developmental pathway choices of 79 young people (13.25-23.75 years old; 33 biological males and 46 biological females) referred to a tertiary care hospital's Department of Psychological Medicine (December 2013-November 2018, at ages 8.42-15.92 years) for diagnostic assessment for gender dysphoria (GD) and for potential gender-affirming medical interventions. All of the young people had attended a screening medical assessment (including puberty staging) by paediatricians. The Psychological Medicine assessment (individual and family) yielded a formal DSM-5 diagnosis of GD in 66 of the young people. Of the 13 not meeting DSM-5 criteria, two obtained a GD diagnosis at a later time. This yielded 68 young people (68/79; 86.1%) with formal diagnoses of GD who were potentially eligible for gender-affirming medical interventions and 11 young people (11/79; 13.9%) who were not. Follow-up took place between November 2022 and January 2023. Within the GD subgroup (n = 68) (with two lost to follow-up), six had desisted (desistance rate of 9.1%; 6/66), and 60 had persisted on a GD (transgender) pathway (persistence rate of 90.9%; 60/66). Within the cohort as a whole (with two lost to follow-up), the overall persistence rate was 77.9% (60/77), and overall desistance rate for gender-related distress was 22.1% (17/77). Ongoing mental health concerns were reported by 44/50 (88.0%), and educational/occupational outcomes varied widely. The study highlights the importance of careful screening, comprehensive biopsychosocial (including family) assessment, and holistic therapeutic support. Even in highly screened samples of children and adolescents seeking a GD diagnosis and gender-affirming medical care, outcome pathways follow a diverse range of possibilities.

Some Limitations of "Challenges in the Care of Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth: An Endocrinologist's View"

There is significant disagreement about how to support trans-identified or gender-dysphoric young people. Different experts and expert bodies make strikingly different recommendations based upon the same (limited) evidence. The US-originating "gender-affirmative" model emphasizes social transition and medical intervention, while some other countries, in response to evidence reviews of medical intervention outcomes, have adopted psychological interventions as the first line of treatment. A proposed model of gender-affirming care, comprising only medical intervention for "eligible" youth, is described in Rosenthal (2021). Determining eligibility for these medical interventions is challenging and engenders considerable disagreement among experts, neither of which is mentioned. The review also claims without support that medical interventions have been shown to clearly benefit mental health, and leaves out significant risks and less invasive alternatives. The unreliability of outcome studies and the corresponding uncertainties as to how gender dysphoria develops and responds to treatment are also unreported.