Gender-Affirming Healthcare
Research Themes
Healthcare Efficacy
The recent politization of medical treatments for gender-expansive people has intensified a known health disparity. Gender-affirming healthcare is supported by decades of research as detailed in the scientific literature. It has become increasingly difficult to recognize social versus medical objection to care protocols, or fact from fiction as reported in the popular press. This Study Hub provides a comprehensive look at relevant research papers in the interest of a better understanding. It is also important to visit all Study Hubs to provide context when evaluating medical information. A thorough analysis regarding their personhood offers respect towards the gender-expansive community.
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria
Rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is used to explain the increases, either perceived or realized, that is claimed about gender-expansive adolescents seeking treatment. Gender critical scholars assert that this phenomenon is a social contagion that guides patients into harmful medical procedures that they will regret later. Gender affirming scholars believe that instead there is more awareness and social acceptance of gender diversity in humanity, and they also question the claims of increased patients as presented by gender critical narratives. Before the politization of their medicine (circa 2016), there was greater freedom in coming forward as gender-expansive individuals to seek care. Let us untangle the complexity of social influences from medical facts related to ROGD. See below.
The Cass Review
The Case Review is a report commissioned in England to evaluate gender-affirming healthcare for youth. This was in response to a failed gender clinic and increased political pressure to document healthcare outcomes. The ultimate goal was to implement safe care protocols. Dr. Hilary Cass employed community-based techniques of gathering data towards her conclusions. This effort was extensive providing useful context towards understanding healthcare issues. Even though the report itself does not recommend removing all gender-affirming healthcare from young people, gender critical proponents use The Cass Review to justify medical bans. More information is shown below including published critiques.
Under Construction
Please check back.
People Like You and Me
To understand the efficacy of gender-affirming healthcare we must first understand the people that it serves. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked by those outside the gender-expansive culture. It is more common to deny gender identity (i.e., gender critical) when in contact with mostly cisgender family, friends, and neighbors. Religious beliefs that require gender binary (immutable as male or female) also perpetuate a gender critical position.
It is well documented that a small segment (~2%) of humanity experience a disconnect between their biological reproductive attributes and their deep sense of who they are in gender. Historical and anthropological study reveal this across time and place. Yet society tends to label this group of people as mistaken about their own experience, mentally ill instead of neurodivergent, and even deceivers and dangerous to others. This contributes to social stigmatization and harmful minority stress. Religious beliefs have been documented to intensify this marginalization of a vulnerable population.
Medical discernment is less effective when done with cisgender eyes and not through the eyes of the patient.
Still Under Construction
The literature reviews are forthcoming. Please check back.