US health department report links transgender support to authoritarianism, drawing scientific criticism
The US Department of Health and Human Services faces intense scientific and legal criticism after releasing an un-peer-reviewed report linking transgender support to left-wing authoritarianism and political violence. Researchers and legal experts, including epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz and law professor Daniel Aaron, condemn the study as a politically motivated piece of pseudoscience that likely violates federal information quality laws. Critics argue the report is an attempt to discredit mainstream medical organizations amid ongoing federal efforts to restrict gender-affirming care.
HHS transgender authoritarianism report
▪The US Department of Health and Human Services released a report linking support for transgender individuals and gender ideology to left-wing authoritarianism and political violence.
▪The US Department of Health and Human Services report on gender ideology was not published in a scientific journal and did not undergo peer review.
▪Colin Wright, a co-author of the report and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, stated the study was published quickly by the US Department of Health and Human Services because a draft had leaked.
Gender-affirming care restrictions
▪Dozens of US hospitals stopped offering gender-affirming care after the Trump administration began investigating facilities providing such care.
▪The US Department of Justice secured an agreement with a New York hospital, Mount Sinai, to end its pediatric gender-affirming care services.
Scientific methodology criticism
▪The authors of the US Department of Health and Human Services report have not released the underlying survey numbers, reporting only correlations in the published paper.
▪University of Sydney epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz criticized the report's methodology, stating its political ideology questionnaire essentially measured whether a respondent was a Democrat rather than measuring authoritarianism.
▪Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz stated the report's political violence questions focused exclusively on violence against conservative figures and institutions, making it an unreliable predictor of general support for political violence.
Federal peer review violations
▪Daniel Aaron, an associate professor at the University of Utah, stated the report likely violates the federal Information Quality Bulletin, which requires peer review for influential scientific information disseminated by the US government.
▪Daniel Aaron questioned why a political science report that is not health-related was published by the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Medical establishment attacks
▪Craig Konnoth, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, characterized the report as an attempt to undermine mainstream medical organizations that offer gender-affirming care guidelines.
▪Craig Konnoth stated that the report's standard would categorize any medical recommendation or licensing board standard as authoritarian.
Story comments
Loading comments…