(LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a “Comprehensive Review of Medical Interventions for Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria” on May 1, and it is a devastating indictment of the so-called “gender-affirming care” model that has harmed thousands of minors over the past decade.
According to the executive summary, the review “highlights a growing body of evidence pointing to significant risks—including irreversible harms such as infertility—while finding very weak evidence of benefit, and that this “weakness has been a consistent finding of systematic reviews of evidence around the world.” President Donald Trump had stated that the review would be forthcoming when he signed the “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” executive order on January 28.
“Our duty is to protect our nation’s children—not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions,” NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya stated. “We must follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas.” Contributors to the review represented “a wide range of political viewpoints,” and included medical doctors, medical ethicists, and a methodologist.
The conclusion of the review, which analyzed existing literature, was clear: The science and accumulated evidence do not support the use of “medical intervention”—puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries—to address gender dysphoria in the young. The executive summary notes that “health authorities in a number of countries have imposed restrictions,” including the U.K.:
Nevertheless, the ‘gender-affirming’ model of care includes irreversible endocrine and surgical interventions on minors with no physical pathology. These interventions carry risk of significant harms including infertility/sterility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone density accrual, adverse cognitive impacts, cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, surgical complications, and regret. Meanwhile, systematic reviews of the evidence have revealed deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions.
The researchers—who have remained unnamed for the time being—found that the existing studies used to support medical intervention for gender dysphoric youth are rife with methodological errors and bias and fail to diagnose potential harms including infertility and the “loss of sexual function.” In colloquial terms, this means minors receiving “gender-affirming care” could lose the ability to have children or function sexually before being old enough to drive or vote. Their conclusions echo those of the UK’s Cass Review, which resulted in a ban on puberty blockers for minors.
The review analyzed 17 systematic reviews, including reviews on puberty blockers, surgical intervention, cross-sex hormones, psychotherapy, and “social transition,” and concluded on Page 8 of the executive summary that:
The evidence for benefit of pediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain. When medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by patients. Failure to do so increases the risk of iatrogenic harm and reduces medicine to consumerism, threatening the integrity of the profession and undermining trust in medical authority.
The researchers also noted that existing research is full of holes, and that the gaps in the evidence are, in part, derived from pre-existing bias. For example, although the public testimonies of “detransitioners”—those who have undergone these treatments and deeply regretted them—have been prominent in the political debate, there is very little evidence available on the pervasiveness (or lack thereof) of regret post-transition. The report notes: “Proponents of pediatric medical transition claim that regret is vanishingly rare, while critics assert that regret is increasingly common. The true rate of regret is not known and better data collection is needed.”
The review also directly counters the most prominent and effective assertion of trans activists and advocates of medical and pharmaceutical intervention: That these “treatments” reduce suicidal ideation, and that these measures are thus “life-saving.” According to the researchers: “The certainty of evidence is very low regarding the effect of surgery on GD [gender dysphoria] or incongruence, improvement in mental health including suicidality and depression, and long-term outcomes such as sexual function, quality of life, and regret.”
It is worth noting that in addition to the Cass Review, a mounting body of evidence has called into question nearly every assertion made by defenders of “gender-affirming care.” For example:
- In 2018, a bombshell study by Lisa Littman found that gender dysphoria among the youth was a “social contagion.”
- A 2023 study by researchers at the University of Florida found that 81% of those who had undergone sex change surgeries in the past five years reported experiencing pain simply from normal movement in the weeks and months that followed.
- A 2023 study revealed that re-analyzed existing data indicated that for the majority of gender dysphoric youth, puberty blockers made no improvements to mental health, and around a third actually deteriorated.
- Two 2025 studies by Canadian researchers found that the evidence surrounding the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors was so weak that it was impossible to tell if these practices helped or harmed.
The list goes on—but trans activists in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere carry on as if none of these studies exist. Children are paying the price, and as this latest review of evidence from the HHS highlights, that price is excruciatingly high.
