What Are We Doing to These Children? Response to Drescher, Clayton, and Balon Commentaries on Levine et al., 2022

Gender-affirming medical treatment for adolescents: a critical reflection on "effective" treatment outcomes

BACKGROUND

The scrutiny surrounding gender-affirming medical treatment (GAMT) for youth has increased, particularly concerning the limited evidence on long-term treatment outcomes. The Standards of Care 8 by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health addresses this by outlining research evidence suggesting "effective" outcomes of GAMT for adolescents. However, claims concerning what are considered "effective" outcomes of GAMT for adolescents remain implicit, requiring further reflection.

METHODS

Using trans negativity as a theoretical lens, we conducted a theory-informed reflexive thematic analysis of the literature cited in the "Research Evidence" section of the SOC8 Adolescents chapter. We selected 16 articles that used quantitative measures to assess GAMT outcomes for youth, examining how "effective" outcomes were framed and interpreted to uncover implicit and explicit normative assumptions within the evidence base.

RESULTS

A total of 44 different measures were used to assess GAMT outcomes for youth, covering physical, psychological, and psychosocial constructs. We identified four main themes regarding the normative assumptions of "effective" treatment outcomes: (1) doing bad: experiencing distress before GAMT, (2) moving toward a static gender identity and binary presentation, (3) doing better: overall improvement after GAMT, and (4) the absence of regret. These themes reveal implicit norms about what GAMT for youth should achieve, with improvement being the benchmark for "effectiveness."

DISCUSSION

We critically reflect on these themes through the lens of trans negativity to challenge what constitutes "effective" GAMT outcomes for youth. We explore how improvement justifies GAMT for youth and address the limitations of this notion.

CONCLUSIONS

We emphasize the need for an explicit discussion on the objectives of GAMT for adolescents. The linear narrative of improvement in GAMT for adolescents is limited and fails to capture the complexity of GAMT experiences. With currently no consensus on how the "effectiveness" of GAMT for adolescents is assessed, this article calls for participatory action research that centers the voices of young TGD individuals.

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?

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.

The Myth of "Reliable Research" in Pediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies-and research that has followed

Two Dutch studies formed the foundation and the best available evidence for the practice of youth medical gender transition. We demonstrate that this work is methodologically flawed and should have never been used in medical settings as justification to scale this "innovative clinical practice." Three methodological biases undermine the research: (1) subject selection assured that only the most successful cases were included in the results; (2) the finding that "resolution of gender dysphoria" was due to the reversal of the questionnaire employed; (3) concomitant psychotherapy made it impossible to separate the effects of this intervention from those of hormones and surgery. We discuss the significant risk of harm that the Dutch research exposed, as well as the lack of applicability of the Dutch protocol to the currently escalating incidence of adolescent-onset, non-binary, psychiatrically challenged youth, who are preponderantly natal females. "Spin" problems-the tendency to present weak or negative results as certain and positive-continue to plague reports that originate from clinics that are actively administering hormonal and surgical interventions to youth. It is time for gender medicine to pay attention to the published objective systematic reviews and to the outcome uncertainties and definable potential harms to these vulnerable youth.