RFK Jr. Calls It “the Most Comprehensive Study to Date” on Gender-Affirming Care. Half its Authors Aren’t Even Doctors.

The HHS’ ‘peer-reviewed’ gender-affirming care report isn’t science, it’s politics.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks at the White House in September | Photo: The White House

Back in May, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released the initial version of its “Review of Evidence and Best Practices” for the “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria.” At its core, it asserts that medical treatment for gender dysphoria in minors (such as hormone therapy and puberty blockers) is ineffective while pushing what is essentially conversion therapy—in the HHS’ words, “exploratory therapy”—as the best course of action. Immediately, this report, which is essentially the American version of the UK’s Cass Review, garnered significant criticism over, among other things, its methodology, findings, and the fact that its authors were kept secret.

Well today, the HHS formally published the report, and in doing so, finally released who had written it. At first glance, many of the names listed aren’t exactly surprising: most of them have a history of advocating against gender-affirming care, and half aren’t even doctors to begin with. The handpicking of these ‘experts’ reflects a deep level of politicisation within what the HHS calls “the most comprehensive study to date,” and that isn’t just an opinion. Here are the nine authors, as well as their backgrounds:

• Evgenia Abbruzzese, a healthcare researcher and one of the co-founders of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, which has been designated by the SPLC as a hate group over its efforts against gender-affirming care.

• Alex Byrne, a professor of philosophy at MIT who is known for his anti-transgender views.

• Farr Curlin, the first on this list to hold a medical degree and a professor at Duke University who has previously written about his opposition to gender-affirming care for minors.

• Moti Gorin, a professor of philosophy at Colorado State University who has also published a philosophical paper criticizing gender-affirming care.

• Kristopher Kaliebe, a psychiatrist and professor at the University of South Florida who has publicly defended legal restrictions on gender-affirming care in the past.

• Michael Laidlaw, an endocrinologist who was hired by the state of Alabama to defend their gender-affirming care ban in court.

• Kathleen McDeavitt, a psychiatrist and professor at Baylor College of Medicine who has published numerous studies criticising gender-affirming care.

• Leor Sapir, a political scientist who works at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, and has defended the pseudoscientific concept of ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria.’

• Yuan Zhang, a healthcare researcher based in Canada who has worked with the Society of Evidence-Based Gender Medicine in the past.

Evidently, among these nine, two are philosophers, one is a political scientist, and only four are actually licensed medical practitioners. For a report on medical practices, that simply is not enough expertise, especially when it comes to an issue this politically charged. And when that expertise did arrive during the peer review process, the criticism from doctors and associations—including the American Psychiatric Association—was quickly brushed aside. Moreover, the fact that it did not include any authors who weren’t already opposed to gender-affirming care is highly indicative of the report having a predetermined outcome.

Looking at the history of this report doesn’t make this any less damning. In fact, the report itself started off as a distinctly political concept: when President Trump signed Executive Order 14187, he ordered the HHS to “publish a review of the existing literature on best practices for promoting the health of children who assert gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion.” And what the findings of that review should be is made abundantly clear earlier in the section, where it is stated, without evidence, that “the blatant harm done to children by chemical and surgical mutilation cloaks itself in medical necessity, spurred by guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which lacks scientific integrity.”

Clearly, the executive order established the assumptions that the HHS must make when crafting its report, placing politics above science. Moreover, the same order that commissioned the report also aims to block all federal funds from medical organisations that continue providing gender-affirming care to those under 19. As such, seeing as that policy was created before the review even existed, it can be reasonably inferred that the review’s role is to provide retroactive justification for the contents of the order.

And even if the HHS had reached a different conclusion, it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. There’s already precedent for that: in Utah, when Republican lawmakers passed their state’s gender-affirming care ban, SB 16, they also commissioned a review on healthcare for trans kids. But two years later, when their review found gender-affirming care led to “positive mental health and psychosocial functioning outcomes,” the law was not reconsidered.

While the HHS claims to hide behind ‘evidence,’ the truth is clear: this review is nothing more than political theatrics masquerading as scientific research. As such, its primary value is political: groups like Genspect and the SEGM will use it to support their positions, Republican politicians will use it to justify existing care bans, and the Trump administration will use it to further pressure medical organisations to cut gender-affirming care for those under 19. But no matter how much RFK Jr. wants it, it will not change the minds of those who are interested in the well-being of trans kids.