The gender-ideological hypothesis that so-called “gender-affirming” care is indisputably best for young people with gender confusion continues to be called into significant question. Two Danish studies increase the pressure on what gender ideologues call “settled science.”
Most recently, a study of the mental-health outcomes for transgendered people receiving hormones of the sex they were not born shows “impaired” mental health compared to non-transgendered, “age-matched controls.” From, “Gender-affirming Treatment and Mental Health Diagnoses in Danish Transgender Persons,” published in the European Journal of Endocrinology (my emphasis):
The number of referrals for transgender care continues to increase and the main aim of gender-affirming treatment is to improve mental health. We investigated longitudinal outcomes of diagnosis codes of mental and behavioral disorders and prescription of psychopharmacological agents in 3812 Danish transgender persons following their first diagnosis of transgender identity. We found that the odds ratio for mental health disorders was more than five times higher in transgender persons compared to controls at baseline. The risk for mental and behavioral disorders in transgender persons increased rapidly during the first year after the index date followed by a decreasing trend, but the odds ratio remained elevated throughout follow-up, especially in transgender person’s assigned male at birth.
This is notable. The aim of transitioning is to “improve mental health,” but often doesn’t. Mental health worsened during the first year, but even after time for adjustment, remained higher than non-transgendered age-matched control groups.
(Apparently, an earlier Swedish study came to a similar conclusion, finding that there is a “substantially increased risk of mental health problems among individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence, and in particular, among those in the process of receiving gender-affirming surgery.”)
Another Danish study from 2022, found that transgendered persons had worse cardiac health than a control group. From, “Cardiovascular Risk in Danish Transgender Persons: a Matched Historical Cohort Study,” published again in the EJE:
We found higher risk of any CVD [cardiovascular disease] in transgenders compared to controls of same and other birth sex with the highest risk for any CVD in transgenders AFAB [assigned female at birth] compared to control men. Furthermore, the incidence rate of arterial, venous and metabolic outcomes was higher in transgenders compared to controls. GAHT [gender affirming hormone treatment]was a statistically significant mediator of risk of any CVD in transgenders AFAB, whereas GAHT was not a statistically significant mediator in AMAB [assigned male at birth]. [Emphasis added.]
Of course, the studies had the usual hedges and uncertainties. And we all know that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Indeed, neither of the Danish studies — nor the Swedish one referenced — claim that transition interventions caused these adverse outcomes. But they also did not rule it out. All studies urged that more studies be conducted, particularly since the incidence of transgender identification is increasing. That clearly should be done — by objective observers, not gender ideologues.
What are some of takeaways from these reports?
First, radically altering the body’s natural sex-based functions could be risky — perhaps even leading to health problems such as heart disease beyond the known potential side effects of transitioning.
Second, mental-health issues may be a classic “chicken or egg” question. But whichever came first — mental-health issues or transgender ideation — it appears clear that mental-health concerns are commonly not alleviated by transitioning and could, perhaps, even result in worse outcomes.
Third, these risks need to be made standard parts of the informed-consent process. Patients are entitled to know about the potential risks highlighted by these studies.
Finally, I believe these studies add great heft to the argument that medical/surgical transitions should not be undertaken in minors, whose bodies are still developing. The unknowns are just too great and the risks to potentially serious to undertake these courses in children. At the very least, parents should be clearly told of potential significant impact on their children’s future health.
Somebody should tell this to the Biden administration and blue-state legislators who continue to push gender affirmation as the only proper approach to children who present with gender confusion. The “science” is not only not “settled,” but it seems to me, appears to be heading in the other direction.