Make money doing the work you believe in
More Misinformation from Jack Turban
Dr. Jack Turban, a child psychiatrist at @UCSF and an ardent supporter of pediatric gender medicine goes on @CNN and, as he often does, makes a series of false and misleading statements, including:
▶️Falsely claiming that all major medical associations endorse pediatric gender-transition interventions. (The American Society of Plastic Surgeons does not. See: benryan.substack.com/p/…)
▶️Using causal language to characterize the supposed impacts of gender-transition treatments on minors. No study has been able to prove such a causal link. Studies have only found associations between these treatments and higher mental health metrics.
▶️Going along with the CNN anchor's misleading characterization of the notion that these treatments "have been used for decades." Until 2008, only about 120 minors in the world had had their puberty suppressed for gender dysphoria. It wasn't until about 2013 that cases of pediatric gender dysphoria shot up and these treatments started being used widely. So there really has only been about a decade of substantial use of the drugs.
▶️Falsely claiming we know that regret rates are low among those who received gender-transition interventions as minors. There has been woefully insufficient research on this subject, and follow-up has been too short and too sparse to make such definitive statements. See: benryan.substack.com/p/….
▶️Mischaracterizing the Cass Review's recommendations by suggesting that Cass wanted access to cross-sex hormones in particular expanded. The report recommended that puberty blockers in particular only be available in clinical trials, which are starting soon. See: benryan.substack.com/p/…. Cass has said that some kids stand to benefit from these drugs. But she has expressed great concern that the current system is not set up to identify which kids are the best candidates.
▶️As he always does, Turban stressed the quantity of studies backing the use of these drugs in minors and not the quality. All systematic literature reviews, which are the gold standard of science, that have assessed these treatments have found the evidence backing them weak and inconclusive.