White House Wants NIH To Research Trans "Regret" And "Detransitioning"

[Twin Tiers Living 573]

Quote

 

The Trump administration has ordered the National Institutes of Health to study the physical and mental health effects of undergoing gender transition, according to an internal NIH memo obtained by NPR.

The directive was shared with NPR by two current NIH staffers who did not want to be identified for fear of retribution. It is from acting NIH Director Mark Memoli, and says the NIH must study the impact of "social transition and/or chemical and surgical mutilation" among children who transition. Specifically, the White House wants the NIH to study "regret" and "detransition" among children and adults who have transitioned.

"This is very important to the President and the Secretary," the memo says, referring to President Trump and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It adds: "They would like us to have funding announcements within the next six months to get this moving." 

The NIH now has to decide the scope and design of the project, how it will be funded, and which researchers will conduct it.

The plan is causing deep concern among many researchers and in the LGBTQ+ community. NPR discussed the memo with some researchers and advocates. 

"What they're looking for is a political answer not a scientific one," says Adrian Shanker, who served as deputy assistant secretary for health policy at HHS under President Biden. "That should be an alarm for everyone who cares about the scientific integrity of the National Institutes of Health."

 

Read the rest ( or listen to) here.

[Andy 117]

I touched on this for a paper I wrote for a class a while back. From what I remember reading, a large chunk of “detransitioning” cases stemmed largely from rejection of friends and family, lack of access/interruption of access to medical care, and religious pressure. A very small amount of people actually “regretted” transitioning. Whatever this yields will probably be stemmed from a specific political lens, instead of actual science

[Chris 3,699]

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to do more research on this given how fast things changed with treating gender dysphoria. It seems like things went from slow and methodical to make sure to handing out hormones like candy overnight. I saw that happen over the span of a couple years and in actual patients. 

However when I heard this on the radio, from the very beginning it's obvious the study will be skewed to achieve desired results, which doesn't seem very scientific to me. But then this administration, hell, society, doesn't seem too concerned with science anymore. 

[MsKreed 1,715]

Two things can be true at once.

It’s possible that “data” in the past few years was skewed toward a confirmation bias that eggagerated potential risks (suicide, etc) of not indulging gender dysphoria while ignoring data that points to potential risks, which can result in “regret” of irreverible treatment.

And it’s also just as possible that the current administration’s “data” will be skewed toward confirmation bias that there is irreparable danger in rushing permanent treatment for gender dysphoria.

 

Given the permanency of treatment of many surgical and hormonal treatments....the prudent path is probably to lean toward “waiting” and exploring the least invasive options (particularly for minors).

Edited April 11 by MsKreed

[Chris 3,699]

14 hours ago, MsKreed said:

Given the permanency of treatment of many surgical and hormonal treatments....the prudent path is probably to lean toward “waiting” and exploring the least invasive options (particularly for minors).

I agree completely.

It’s amazing to me that we have age restrictions on things like consent, contracts, firearms, alcohol consumption, etc., often because it’s presumed the brain development hasn’t finished and they aren’t capable of making those decisions. But when it comes to gender identity, it’s full steam ahead, no questions asked. Or allowed.

[MsKreed 1,715]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

I agree completely.

It’s amazing to me that we have age restrictions on things like consent, contracts, firearms, alcohol consumption, etc., often because it’s presumed the brain development hasn’t finished and they aren’t capable of making those decisions. But when it comes to gender identity, it’s full steam ahead, no questions asked. Or allowed.

Tubal ligation is illegal under age 18 in all states, and under age 21 most states. 

Hell, there are plenty of "gender normative" mothers up to age 30 who don't want more children and still face obstacles having their tubes tied because decades of accepted research that shows that, “regrets were expressed by 20.3% of women aged 30 years or younger at the time of bilateral tubal ligation and by 5.9% of women older than 30 years at time of procedure". And women with no children are often encouraged to wait until age 35 to make such a "drastic" decision. 

But sure.....if the same person thinks they want irreversible gender reassignment, then naturally they aren't ever going to feel differently. 

[Chris 3,699]

When I heard this on the radio, this statement stuck out to me:

Quote

"Regret rates for gender-affirming care are about less than 1%, which is much lower than regret rates for procedures that we see as quite common and that are widely accepted," such as hip replacements, obesity surgeries and even tattoos, says Lindsey Dawson, who directs LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a non-partisan health research group.

All I could think of was, it seems to me there was another rate or population of about 1% that we're told not to disregard.