The Trump admin is trying to push a conversion therapy by another name on trans kids
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report about youth gender care last week that cautions against the use of medical interventions in gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers, for minors. It instead recommends something called 'exploratory therapy,' a controversial form of psychotherapy which has been compared by many to a kind of conversion therapy by a kinder name.
One especially concerning fact about this report is that HHS did not disclose the names of those involved in putting it together, nor information about who was consulted for the report, raising questions over what potential biases should be accounted for. The HHS report joins the United Kingdom's Cass Review — which has been similarly denounced by prominent researchers and practitioners dealing in transgender care — as a major national report on youth gender medicine for which no expert contributors have been named.
Transfeminine jurist and bioethicist Florence Ashley, who has authored numerous academic papers on trans-related health care, (including a 2022 report titled "Interrogating Gender-Exploratory Therapy" published in Perspectives on Psychological Science) shared on BlueSky that a meta analysis of the appendix of the HHS report, which you can access through EXIF data by opening the appendix in NotePad, shows the name Alex Byrne, an MIT philosophy professor who posts anti-trans messages nearly every day on social media. It's unclear whether, or to what extent, Byrne played a role in the report, and my questions to him about this went unanswered.
It's notable that the HHS report mentions the Cass Review, which was led by British pediatrician and former chair of the British Academy of Childhood Disability Hilary Cass, who according to New York Times reporting has 'never treated children with gender dysphoria,' 198 times in its 400 pages. This apparent reliance on the Cass Review as a kind of blueprint for its findings could also explain how such a lengthy report was produced in the three or so months since Trump ordered its creation in a Jan. 28 executive order. Typically, a medical report of this scale takes years to complete. The aforementioned Cass Review took four years to complete, for example.
Major medical associations in the U.S. have denounced the report, including the American Association of Pediatrics, which said in a statement: 'For such an analysis to carry credibility, it must consider the totality of available data and the full spectrum of clinical outcomes rather than relying on select perspectives and a narrow set of data. This report misrepresents the current medical consensus and fails to reflect the realities of pediatric care. As we have seen with immunizations, bypassing medical expertise and scientific evidence has real consequences for the health of America's children. AAP was not consulted in the development of this report, yet our policy and intentions behind our recommendations were cited throughout in inaccurate and misleading ways. The report prioritizes opinions over dispassionate reviews of evidence.'
On its face, the 'exploratory therapy' the report encourages as a primary form of treatment for children with gender dysphoria might not appear so bad. It's also important to note that therapy is already a major requirement for gender transitions of people of all ages, and especially for children, although it generally looks quite different. Proponents of exploratory therapy describe it as simply exploring a teenager's life in search of potential 'causes' of any gender dysphoria. The problem is there is no legitimate science with another explanation for gender dysphoria other than it is a naturally occurring trait among a tiny proportion of the population.
The HHS document claims that exploratory therapy is meant to help trans youth 'come to terms' with their birth sexed body as an end goal. There's no data presented on the efficacy of this approach beyond guesswork by proponents of this therapy. There are no studies presented to show how the exploratory therapy approach might impact suicidality in trans teens. We know from past history that victims of conversion therapy, where their true self is denied and overruled by doctors with an anti-LGBTQ agenda, are at very elevated risk for suicidality.
The report's own findings show how natural gender dysphoria is in those who present with it. In one section, its authors state that about 90% of gender dysphoric youth who go on puberty blockers end up 'graduating' to cross sex hormones when they are older (a finding backed up in multiple studies) and can make a more mature and permanent decision.
When I see that 90% number, I see a process that is working at correctly identifying which youth with gender dysphoria are actually just naturally trans.
Yet, the report states that puberty blockers may act as a 'gas pedal' for further medical interventions. 'The perception of PBs has shifted — from being seen as a reversible 'pause button' to more like a 'gas pedal' that accelerates medical transition,' reads a key passage from the report. 'Social transition in childhood may have similar effects, with some low-quality studies suggesting the majority of children who socially transition before puberty progress to medical interventions. These patients 'are likely [to] seek blockers or hormones.''
Social transition is the process wherein a trans youth may try a different haircut, name and pronouns. But these statements can only be true if you desire fewer trans youth to transition. The report authors' solution to this so-called problem is gender exploratory therapy.
On its face, exploratory therapy is, according to its proponents, meant to help a young person experiencing gender dysphoria 'come to terms' and accept their birth sexed body. Practitioners of exploratory therapy believe that gender dysphoria has a wide range of causes, from childhood sexual trauma, to the discredited idea that being trans is socially contagious, to just typical pubertal discomfort with body changes.
Many of these proposed 'causes' were also used to justify conversion therapy in gay and lesbian teens 30 years ago. It's hard to not conclude that practitioners of exploratory therapy simply do not believe that trans minors should be allowed to transition, since there's no endpoint to exploratory approaches that can result in a patient accessing gender-affirming care.
It's an approach designed to run out the clock on a teenager's natural puberty, potentially trapping them in a sexed body they never wanted until they may be able to transition as adults.
Compare this with the gender-affirming approach, which lets a teen take the lead on how they are feeling about transitioning. Does it seem too scary right now? OK, let's wait. Do we want to try puberty blockers to see how it feels for a while? Let's try. Do we want to stop all this gender treatment altogether because it feels like too much? That's fine, too.
There's a major misconception about the gender-affirming approach. Critics have misinformed the public into thinking that the affirming approach automatically affirms that every child who shows up in a gender clinic is trans and launches them into a full and immediate medical treatment. This simply doesn't happen. The process for accessing this care is long and arduous. Teens must express their gender dysphoria persistently, consistently and insistently over a long period of time, often for years, to even get a gender dysphoria diagnosis.
The bare contempt this report's anonymous authors hold for transgender people is astounding to take in, even for someone like myself who has spent the last decade covering trans issues.
We already have a solid system for carefully identifying youth with gender dysphoria and guiding them through a fairly simple, but lengthy and emotional medical transition process. I suggest we leave the analysis to the true experts, whose years of research and abundance of medical studies have provided the public with the comprehensive, medically sound treatment plans we already have in place — rather than unnamed authors who provide little evidence for what very much appears to be bad-faith findings.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
11 minutes ago
- Associated Press
RFK Jr.'s made promises about vaccines. Here's what he's done as health secretary
During his Senate confirmation hearings, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested he wouldn't undermine vaccines. 'I am not going to go into HHS and impose my preordained opinions on anybody at HHS,' he said. 'I'm going to empower the scientists at HHS to do their job and make sure that we have good science that is evidence based.' He also said he wouldn't halt congressionally mandated funding for vaccination programs, nor impose conditions that would force local, state or global entities to limit access to vaccines or vaccine promotion. 'I'm not going to substitute my judgment for science,' he said. Yet the Department of Health and Human Services under Kennedy has taken unprecedented steps to change how vaccines are evaluated, approved and recommended — sometimes in ways that run counter to established scientific consensus. Here's a look at what Kennedy has said and done since becoming the nation's top health official on Feb. 13. Kennedy and the childhood vaccine schedule Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician who was unsettled about Kennedy's antivaccine work, said Kennedy pledged to him that he wouldn't change existing vaccine recommendations. 'I recommend that children follow the CDC schedule. And I will support the CDC schedule when I get in there,' Kennedy said at his Senate confirmation hearing. Kennedy also said he thought the polio vaccine was safe and effective and that he wouldn't seek to reduce its availability. Feb. 18: Kennedy vows to investigate the childhood vaccine schedule that prevents measles, polio and other dangerous diseases. Early March: The National Institutes of Health cancels studies about ways to improve vaccine trust and access. April 9: Kennedy tells CBS News that 'people should get the measles vaccine, but the government should not be mandating those,' before then continuing to raise safety concerns about vaccines. May 22: Kennedy issues a report that, among other things, questioned the necessity of mandates that require children to get vaccinated for school admission and suggested that vaccines should undergo more clinical trials, including with placebos. The report has to be reissued later because the initial version cited studies that don't exist. May 30: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removes COVID-19 vaccination guidance for pregnant women and says healthy children 'may' get the shots. June 25: A group of vaccine advisers picked by Kennedy announce they are establishing a work group to evaluate the 'cumulative effect' of the children's vaccine schedule. June 25: Kennedy announces the U.S. will stop supporting the vaccines alliance Gavi. He accuses the group, along with the World Health Organization, of silencing 'dissenting views' and 'legitimate questions' about vaccine safety. Kennedy on revising CDC vaccine recommendations At the confirmation hearing, Cassidy asked Kennedy: 'Do you commit that you will revise any CDC recommendations only based on peer review, consensus based, widely accepted science?' Kennedy replied, 'Absolutely,' adding he would rely on evidence-based science. Feb. 20: HHS postpones a meeting of outside vaccine advisers. April 16: The CDC's vaccine advisory panel meets and recommends that people 50 to 59 with certain risk factors should be able to get vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus, and endorses a new shot that protects against meningococcal bacteria. As of late June, the CDC and HHS haven't acted on the recommendations. May 27: Kennedy announces that COVID-19 vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women — a move immediately questioned by several public health experts. No one from the CDC, the agency that makes such recommendations, is present in the video announcing the changes. June 9: Kennedy ousts all 17 members of the science panel that advises the CDC on how vaccines should be used. June 11: Kennedy names new vaccine policy advisers to replace the panel that he dismissed. They include a scientist who rose to prominence by relaying conspiracy theories around the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccines that followed, a leading critic of pandemic-era lockdowns, a business school professor, and a nurse affiliated with a group that is widely considered to be a leading source of vaccine misinformation. June 26: Kennedy's vaccine advisers recommend that people receive flu shots free of an ingredient that antivaccine groups have falsely tied to autism. The vote comes after a presentation from an antivaccine group's former leader. A CDC staff analysis of past research on the topic is removed from the agency's website because, according to a committee member, the report hadn't been authorized by Kennedy's office. Kennedy on vaccine approvals and review standards At the Senate hearing, Cassidy asked Kennedy if he would keep FDA's historically rigorous vaccine review standards. 'Yes,' Kennedy replied. March 29: Kennedy forces the FDA's top vaccine official to resign. The official, Peter Marks, says he feared Kennedy's team might manipulate or delete data from a vaccine safety database. May 6: Kennedy names Dr. Vinay Prasad, an outspoken critic of the FDA's handling of COVID-19 boosters, as the FDA's vaccine chief. May 16: After a delay, the FDA grants Novavax full approval for its COVID-19 vaccine but with unusual restrictions: The agency says it's for use only in adults 65 and older – or those 12 to 64 who have at least one health problem that puts them at increased risk from COVID-19. May 20: Top officials limit the approval for seasonal COVID-19 shots to seniors and others at high risk, pending more data on everyone else. The FDA urges companies to conduct large, lengthy studies before tweaked vaccines can be approved for healthier people, a stark break from the previous federal policy recommending an annual COVID-19 shot for all Americans six months and older. May 30: FDA approves a new COVID-19 vaccine made by Moderna but with the same limits on who can get it as Novavax's shot. Kennedy on bird flu vaccine At his confirmation hearing, Kennedy said he would support the development of a vaccine for H5N1 bird flu. 'I'm going to continue research on every kind of vaccine,' he said. May 28: The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, an HHS agency, cancels $766 million in awards to Moderna to develop a vaccine against potential pandemic influenza viruses, including the H5N1 bird flu. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


Politico
40 minutes ago
- Politico
30 days and then what on birthright citizenship?
The Supreme Court has preserved the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to cover preventive health services like colonoscopies and HIV prevention drugs at no cost to patients. It's the fourth time in the past 13 years that the high court has rejected major challenges to the 2010 health law. This time around, the vote was 6-3, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion for a cross-ideological majority. Three of the court's conservatives dissented. The case centered on a panel of experts known as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The Affordable Care Act authorized the task force to specify health screenings and other preventive services that insurers must cover without charging patients copayments, deductibles or other cost-sharing. Tens of millions of Americans rely on those services, including cancer screenings, heart disease medications and the drug, known as PrEP, that prevents the transmission of HIV. Opponents of the ACA who object to the HIV drug argued that the task force — which is chosen by the secretary of Health and Human Services — was unconstitutionally appointed. The task force members, the opponents argued, wield so much power that they amount to 'principal officers' under the Constitution's appointments clause and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reasoning that the members are not principal officers because the health secretary can ignore their recommendations, fire them and replace them. 'Task Force members issue preventive-services recommendations of critical importance to patients, doctors, insurers, employers, healthcare organizations, and the American people more broadly. In doing so, however, the Task Force members remain subject to the Secretary of HHS's supervision and direction, and the Secretary remains subject to the President's supervision and direction,' Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. 'The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers' design of the Appointments Clause.' Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The Trump administration surprised many when it revealed earlier this year that it would continue the Biden administration's defense of the Obamacare provision. But it shifted the focus of the federal government's legal argument. The Biden Justice Department had argued in lower courts that free preventive care was crucial for the health of millions of American patients. The Trump DOJ, on the other hand, focused during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April on preserving executive power and fending off judicial and legislative encroachments. Health policy experts and patient advocates who expressed relief that the Trump administration opted to defend Obamacare remain concerned that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials will now deploy that power to reshape what services must be covered by insurance without copays. 'They really pointed out how much authority they think their Secretary wields, which is kind of foreboding given who the Secretary is and his ideas about science and health,' said Andrew Twinamatsiko, the director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. 'Somebody could be fairly concerned that there could be weaponization of the task force.' And, while this case focused solely on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the decision could also empower Kennedy to overhaul other advisory panels at HHS.

Politico
40 minutes ago
- Politico
Supreme Court preserves Obamacare coverage of preventive health care
The Supreme Court has preserved the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to cover preventive health services like colonoscopies and HIV prevention drugs at no cost to patients. It's the fourth time in the past 13 years that the high court has rejected major challenges to the 2010 health law. This time around, the vote was 6-3, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion for a cross-ideological majority. Three of the court's conservatives dissented. The case centered on a panel of experts known as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The Affordable Care Act authorized the task force to specify health screenings and other preventive services that insurers must cover without charging patients copayments, deductibles or other cost-sharing. Tens of millions of Americans rely on those services, including cancer screenings, heart disease medications and the drug, known as PrEP, that prevents the transmission of HIV. Opponents of the ACA who object to the HIV drug argued that the task force — which is chosen by the secretary of Health and Human Services — was unconstitutionally appointed. The task force members, the opponents argued, wield so much power that they amount to 'principal officers' under the Constitution's appointments clause and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reasoning that the members are not principal officers because the health secretary can ignore their recommendations, fire them and replace them. 'Task Force members issue preventive-services recommendations of critical importance to patients, doctors, insurers, employers, healthcare organizations, and the American people more broadly. In doing so, however, the Task Force members remain subject to the Secretary of HHS's supervision and direction, and the Secretary remains subject to the President's supervision and direction,' Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. 'The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers' design of the Appointments Clause.' Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The Trump administration surprised many when it revealed earlier this year that it would continue the Biden administration's defense of the Obamacare provision. But it shifted the focus of the federal government's legal argument. The Biden Justice Department had argued in lower courts that free preventive care was crucial for the health of millions of American patients. The Trump DOJ, on the other hand, focused during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April on preserving executive power and fending off judicial and legislative encroachments. Health policy experts and patient advocates who expressed relief that the Trump administration opted to defend Obamacare remain concerned that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials will now deploy that power to reshape what services must be covered by insurance without copays. 'They really pointed out how much authority they think their Secretary wields, which is kind of foreboding given who the Secretary is and his ideas about science and health,' said Andrew Twinamatsiko, the director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. 'Somebody could be fairly concerned that there could be weaponization of the task force.' And, while this case focused solely on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the decision could also empower Kennedy to overhaul other advisory panels at HHS.