Published: July 05, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00197-8
As a group of psychotherapists working in the area of gender, we have concerns about the arguments and statistics presented in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health's Editorial.1
We believe that using the outdated statistic that 1% of people who transition will regret their decision is highly irresponsible, and lacks the rigour for which the Lancet group of journals is known. This 1% refers primarily to studies of adults who transitioned in an era when medical transition was only taken under strict protocol.2 We now find ourselves in a markedly different era, characterised by a 1727% rise in the numbers of children seeking to transition,3 and a gender-affirmative approach, which has been adopted almost universally, making the proffered 1% statistic anachronistic.4 We do not believe puberty blockers are a safe and appropriate option, as supported by a blog by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson,5 especially given that the use of this highly experimental treatment path is being reconsidered by progressive countries in Europe. The Karolinska Institute in Sweden, long considered gold-standard in providing transgender health care, no longer uses puberty blockers;6 nor does Finland promote their use.7 Additionally, a judicial review in the UK found puberty blockers to be an inappropriate option for most children younger than 16 years.8
We urge The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health to take this opportunity to engage with this issue, rather than publishing, in our opinion, inaccurate and careless Editorials.
We declare no competing interests.
References
1.
The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health
A flawed agenda for trans youth. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2021; 5: 385View in Article
PubMed
Summary
Full Text
Full Text PDF
Google Scholar
2.
Bustos V
Bustos S
Mascaro A
et al.
Regret after gender-affirmation surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021; 9e3477View in Article
Scopus (0)
PubMed
Crossref
Google Scholar
3.
Gender Identity Development Service
Referrals to GIDS, financial years 2010–11 to 2020–21. https://gids.nhs.uk/number-referralsDate accessed: June 30, 2021 View in Article
Google Scholar
4.
Stock K
Material girls: why reality matters for feminism. Fleet Publishing, London2012View in Article
Google Scholar
5.
Heneghan C
Jefferson T
Gender-affirming hormone in children and adolescents. Blog BMJ EBM Spotlight. 2019;https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/Date accessed: June 30, 2021 View in Article
Google Scholar
6.
Naiingolan L
Hormonal Tx of youth with gender dysphoria stops in Sweden. Medscape Medical News. May 12, 2021;https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/950964 View in Article
Google Scholar
7.
Palveluvalikoima
Summary of a recommendation by Council for Choices in Health Care, Finland. Medical treatment methods for dysphoria associated with variations in gender identity in minors—recommendation. https://palveluvalikoima.fi/documents/1237350/22895008/Summary_minors_en.pdf/aaf9a6e7-b970-9de9-165c-abedfae46f2e/Summary_minors_en.pdfDate: 2020 Date accessed: June 30, 2021 View in Article
Google Scholar
8.
McCall B
Nainggolan L
Transgender teens: is the tide starting to turn? Medscape Medical News. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/949842Date: April 26, 2021 View in Article
Google Scholar
Article Info
Publication History
Published: July 05, 2021
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.