Recap: Twenty-five years ago, we had a very defined population of what we called “transsexuals.” The overwhelming majority were male-to-female and had a similar pathology. That science showed hormones and surgery were the best tools. It’s rock solid. And it is still true today because the pathology looks the same. The problem is as the cohort expanded that same science was used to justify that healthcare pathway being applied to a lot of other groups. ✅ Does it make sense to apply that healthcare pathway to the explosion of young biological girls today thinking they may be trans? Are they experiencing something different than female to male transsexual adults from before social media? ✅ Does it make sense to apply it to transvestitic fetishists, a completely different category in the DSM-V? ✅ Does it make sense to apply it to non-binary people that do not meet the DSM-V criteria for gender dysphoria? We are putting many people in these three groups on this path. And the population cohorts are just not the same. I’m not calling to ban anyone’s healthcare, all of these decisions are ultimately between a person and their doctor. But I am saying, all of these three groups deserve more research to show if medical intervention is going to benefit them. And they deserve the truth from the healthcare providers that the efficacy of intervention is really understudied. Especially in adolescence. https://bird.makeup/@robferrante/1825973067371155637
See Tweet