She is concerned the US federal-funded research findings could be "weaponised" to oppose gender-transition drugs for minors, as the debate over "gender-affirming care" reverberates through political and medical spheres.

"I do not want our work to be weaponised" she says. "It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time."

She will publish when she's ready. But right now, she says her team has been delayed over National Institute of Health (NIH) funding cuts to the project, which the NIH denied.

The research

Olson-Kennedy began the study in 2015 as part of a broader federal-funded project on transgender health. She and her team sought to mirror the Dutch Protocol, as its research results have never been replicated.

The Dutch protocol - a paper published in 2006 - found children whose gender dysphoria was treated with puberty blockers had better mental health outcomes.

It helped spur the worldwide explosion of gender youth clinics, where children who identify as the opposite sex may be treated with puberty blocker drugs, cross-sex hormones and surgeries.

Despite the Dutch Protocol's claims that children would experience decreased depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts, Olson-Kennedy and her team's results contradict this.

They found after two years research, the mental health of the subjects — 95 adolescents with an average age of 11 — who received puberty blockers didn't change much.

"They're in really good shape when they come in, and they're in really good shape after two years" says Olson-Kennedy.

Although she has found mental health remains unchanged, Olson-Kennedy says puberty blocker drugs have their place in treatment options for transgender youth.

She says she has "prescribed puberty blockers and hormonal treatments to transgender children and adolescents for 17 years" and has seen "how profoundly beneficial they can be".

The Washington Times challenged her assertion about young transgender people's mental health however, citing a 2020 progress report showing about one-quarter of the children suffered from depression and one-quarter reported thoughts of suicide.

Suppression criticised

Olson-Kennedy's refusal to publish her part of the research into the overall transgender health report has caused an outcry on social media.

Critics are accusing the researchers and the agency of placing activism over scientific evidence.

"This is not science. This is activism and the NIH should not be funding it" - Camilo Ortiz, a professor of clinical psychology at Long Island University, wrote on X.

"A real scientist accepts what the data show and has an allegiance to the truth."

The NIH is not concerned that - despite being provided the research funds - Olson-Kennedy won't be publishing her results.

The agency leaves it to researchers to decide how and when to publish their results although they are encouraged to do so, a spokesperson told the Washington Times.

Source

• Washington Times

This announcement effectively ends the practice of providing sex-change drugs and hormone medications to children in Scotland — just one month after England instituted the same ban.

Per the new policy formalised on April 18, new patients in Scotland must wait until they are 18 years old to access those drugs or hormone medications. However, patients who are under the age of 18 and have already begun such remedies to facilitate a gender transition will not be forced to stop.

Read More

Most of my fellow students at the University of California Berkeley went to Ivy League schools as undergraduates. They were well read, articulate and confident.

When they asked where I went to school, I responded, "St. Louis," and they presumed I meant Washington University, and I had to specify St. Louis University.

"Isn't that a Catholic school?" I was asked. My response was, "Worse yet, it is Jesuit."

As a result, I always felt like a tortoise among the hares. The only advantage I had was that I was older and knew I was not a genius.

Not knowing

One of the dangers of being young and smart is that you think you have all the answers.

Aaron Wildavsky, one of the smartest teachers I ever had, once asked a class, "What are the hardest three words to pronounce in the English language?" His answer, "I don't know."

In political, academic and ecclesial life, saying "I don't know" is the equivalent of committing professional suicide.

It is an admission that you do not have all the answers.

If you don't have the answers, why should anyone listen to you. We will move on to the person who claims to have the answers.

For a doctor, politician, scholar, columnist or priest to say "I don't know" is so humiliating that they will often give a "nonresponse response" that hides ignorance in a fog of words.

Better to pretend certitude than acknowledge ignorance. And if you later discover you were wrong, never admit it. Plow forward and pretend your new position is consistent with everything you said in the past.

Gender debate - certainty or uncertainty

I have been thinking about plowing forward and pretending recently in the context of the debate over dealing with gender dysphoria. That's the term given when the gender you identify with is different from the gender you were assigned at birth.

Most people in the debate speak with utter conviction and certitude.

Would that we had more voices that said, "I don't know," or at least said, "It's complicated."

The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics support gender-affirming care.

This care may include medical and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria and gender incongruence, as determined by shared decision making between the patient and physician.

On the other hand, European countries, who were the first to do gender-affirming care, are now backing away from it, especially for children. New research has questioned earlier studies that supported gender-affirming care.

England's National Health Service (NHS) has banned puberty blockers for youth after a review found a lack of evidence that medication helped gender dysphoria.

For adults, it will allow prescriptions only via clinical trials or for existing patients.

The British approach is a reasonable effort to follow the first principle of medicine: "Do no harm." It is also a positive effort to gain more information through clinical trials.

Those who prioritise personal autonomy and choice above all other values will see such restrictions as an assault on personal freedom.

Those who think gender dysphoria is not real will see even clinical trials as an assault on human dignity.

Both sides have their "experts" and spokespersons. Both sides present anecdotal evidence and research that supports their views. What should be a conversation about medical treatment has become fuel for the culture wars.

I am a member of the "I don't know" and "It is complicated" club.

Research matters

The NHS approach sounds reasonable to me. I worry about people, especially kids or their parents, making decisions that will seriously impact the rest of their lives

Clinical trials will help discover what works and what does not, who should receive treatment and who should not.

I question anyone who does such treatments without serious follow-up studies.

On the other hand, telling people in pain to "stand by until further notice" seems heartless.

Those opposed to gender-affirming care must follow the example of Pope Francis and welcome and love the transgender people in their communities.

Experiencing discrimination and isolation only makes matters worse.

In addition, they should be helped by dealing with the maladies that often accompany gender dysphoria such as depression. One cannot deny gender-affirming care without offering something else in its place.

Being a member of the "I don't know club" means you will be attacked by both sides.

It does not mean you have nothing to say.

It means you should ask the questions that need to be answered. There is no such thing as a stupid question; there are only stupid answers.

• First published by Religion News Service
• The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit priest, is a Senior Analyst at RNS

"Puberty blockers … are not available to children and young people for gender incongruence or gender dysphoria because there is not enough evidence of safety and clinical effectiveness," the NHS England website's section on "treatment" for gender dysphoria reads after the update.

The drugs block a child's natural developments during puberty by preventing the production of hormones, such as testosterone and estrogen. For example, they prevent height growth, a girl's breast development, and a boy's facial hair growth, among other things.

Read More