Protecting Transgender Health and Challenging Science Denialism in Policy

This perspective critiques state level bans on gender affirming care as a form of science denialism, highlighting four key tactics: (1) repudiating gender dysphoria as a legitimate medical condition, (2) misrepresenting clinical standards (e.g., falsely claiming minors routinely undergo genital surgery), (3) exaggerating risks (e.g., infertility from puberty blockers), and (4) cherry picking or misusing research. The authors debunk these claims, citing decades of evidence supporting gender affirming care’s safety and efficacy, including reduced suicidality and improved mental health. They emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration (e.g., legal medical amicus briefs) to counter misinformation, noting temporary court blocks of bans in Arkansas, Alabama, and Texas. The article warns of broader threats to civil liberties post Dobbs and calls for sustained advocacy to protect evidence-based care.

This perspective critiques state level bans on gender affirming care as a form of science denialism, highlighting four key tactics: (1) repudiating gender dysphoria as a legitimate medical condition, (2) misrepresenting clinical standards (e.g., falsely claiming minors routinely undergo genital surgery), (3) exaggerating risks (e.g., infertility from puberty blockers), and (4) cherry picking or misusing research. The authors debunk these claims, citing decades of evidence supporting gender affirming care’s safety and efficacy, including reduced suicidality and improved mental health. They emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration (e.g., legal medical amicus briefs) to counter misinformation, noting temporary court blocks of bans in Arkansas, Alabama, and Texas. The article warns of broader threats to civil liberties post Dobbs and calls for sustained advocacy to protect evidence-based care.